"In the Heat of the Night" (1967)

Rank on the AFI List: #75

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it starred Sidney Poitier and included the famous quote, "They call me Mr. Tibbs."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was my first Sidney Poitier film, and I was excited to see him act. I might be ignorant about this, but I always thought he was kind of like the Jackie Robinson of film (even though other African Americans had been in movies before him, and even won awards). So, with that, I assumed "In the Heat of the Night" would convey at least some racial issues (especially since it was made in the 1960s). And that is certainly what it did.

It was a bit amusing that when my wife and I paused it at about 40 minutes in, I said, "this is pretty good, but something quite significant better happen in the second half, or I will be really confused as to why this is considered one of the best movies ever made." Then we started watching again, and in about 10 minutes, I really began to understand why it's such a good movie (and why "They call me Mr. Tibbs" is considered one of the greatest quotes in movie history).

Yes, it was a good cop-drama, mystery-thriller, CSI-like movie. If you like that stuff, this is a movie I'd recommend, especially thinking about how cutting edge CSI must have been in 1967. But that's not why this is considered to be one of the best movies ever made.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Sidney Poitier is a great cop from Pennsylvania. He's very smart. He's also black and forced to solve a crime in a bigoted town in the deep South in the 60s. Consider that scenario. A black man who has a job that demands respect is forced to do his job in a place where black people get absolutely no respect (to say the least). And then add to that that he is far and away the smartest, most level-headed person in the bigoted town, yet he still gets treated like he's inferior. The racial tension throughout the entire movie is what makes this one of the best in American history. Oh, and it was also nominated for seven Academy Awards and won five of them, including Best Picture.

Not really a complaint, but...
When the crime is solved at the end, it was a little confusing as far as motive and what exactly happened. I sort of deduced those things after a few minutes, but it almost felt like the actual crime being solved was beside the point. Of course, as I said earlier, it's the scenario of the story that's the real plot, so I guess I can't really fault the movie for not straying off its intended course.

Great Movie Moment!
I don't want to ruin this particular scene for anyone, so I can't give specifics. But I just have to say that "In the Heat of the Night" has one of the all-time BEST movie moments EVER!! My wife and I absolutely LOVED it! (You'll have to watch this to know what I'm talking about. But you'll know it when it happens.)


LET ME SUM UP...
This was a very good movie. The scenario of the story alone is provocative, and then add in some great acting (Rod Steiger won the Academy Award for Best Actor, and Sidney Poitier deserved at least a nomination) a well-written screenplay (which also won an Academy Award), and one of the best scenes EVER in film, and this was a thoroughly enjoyable movie.

MY RATING: 8/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 61

"Intolerance" (1916)

Rank on the AFI List: #49

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it was a silent film, and the oldest movie on the AFI list.

AFI Synopsis:
[D.W.] Griffith's monumental exploration of intolerance is told through four different but parallel stories from ancient Babylon, to the time of Christ in Judea, to Paris in 1572, to social reformers in contemporary America. A milestone in filmmaking, each story was tinted in a different color (but the version we watched didn't have the tinted colors).

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was the second silent film I've ever seen (the other one being Sunrise), and I'm really glad I had something to compare "Intolerance" to (and a movie I'm now able to compare "Sunrise" to), even though they were made 11 years apart.

With being one of the earliest major movies ever made, it was a different kind of experience. The film begins with the audience literally being told the plot, the theme, and the reason the movie was made (which I found to be a little annoying because I like watching a movie and coming to those conclusions on my own). There were several times when a "note" was included to give historical background - or even information about the set - for the upcoming scene. And watching this movie didn't really bring out any emotions for me (except for one small feeling of suspense toward the end). Again, it was just a different experience, but I'm really glad I watched "Intolerance" to help broaden my horizons.

Something that shocked me quite a bit was how graphic this movie was. There was a beheading and other violent acts like people being run-through with swords (these "special effects" were actually quite impressive considering when this movie was made). But even more shocking was the nudity: several shots of boobs hanging out, and I think I saw a rear-end in one scene. I always thought there was a strict forbiddance of nudity in film until maybe the 1960s. Apparently "Intolerance" was made before censorship came upon the film industry.

So how does it compare to the other silent film I've seen? Without a doubt, I liked "Sunrise" more. To me, "Sunrise" has more of a timeless quality, and it did an amazing job at telling its story by conveying feelings and emotions using little to no words or explanations. "Intolerance" didn't really do that, but it did tell its story on a much grander scale (keep reading to find out what I mean).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
For a movie made in 1916, it was pretty impressive. The term "epic" is perfect, too, because there were battle scenes, four different stories interweaving between each other, over 16,000 extras (I don't even want to think about how many of them were either injured or killed during filming), and the largest set ever made in the history of film (watch the Babylonian scenes and you will be amazed by just how grandiose the sets were). And the entire movie cost about $2 million to make.....in 1916. I found an "inflation calculator" online and was surprised that that's the equivalent of only $39+ million in 2008. But still, that's a ton of money, people, and resources for one film. And I read in several places that the way the four stories were told in spurts and bounced back and forth between each other was groundbreaking and changed the way stories were (and continue to be) told through film.

Complaints:
One could argue that, by today's movie-making standards, this was a bit of a "rough cut". The story-telling wasn't the sharpest, the flow of the movie wasn't that smooth, and a lot of shots didn't seem to be very relevent. Of course, it was 1916, so the art of telling a story through film probably hadn't really reached the fine-tuning stage yet.

Another small complaint of mine: the four stories didn't relate all that well to the definition of intolerance (or even to each other). It was like D.W. Griffith saw everything in life through the "intolerance lens". Even if it didn't really apply to a situation, intolerance was what he saw, and to me, that made some of these stories weak because they weren't really about intolerance. I think "hate" and "greed" are better descriptors of what all four stories are about.

LET ME SUM UP...
"Intolerance" is a very different movie experience. I never really had any sort of emotional investment in any of the characters, and I didn't like how the movie bluntly describes the plot and themes that come up. However, I was very impressed with the grand scale of this movie. And 1916 was such a different time for film that I can't fault "Intolerance" for the weird little peculiarities that make it so different from modern day movies. So with that, I'll say that I think this was a good movie and I'm glad I've now watched it, but I wouldn't say I liked it.

MY RATING: 5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 60

"North by Northwest" (1959) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #55

Synopsis (according to AFI)
Grant is the Hitchcockian everyman caught up in something he doesn't understand as he travels from New York to Mount Rushmore in this mire of spies, counterspies, and romance.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
My wife went out with some friends for the evening, so I decided to do a "re-watch" of an AFI movie I own and love: "North by Northwest". I rated it a 10 out of 10 on my very first post because it's one of my favorite movies of all time and a down-right fun adventure. But now that my film critiquing is in full swing with the AFI list, I was curious to see if I would still consider it a perfect 10.

Surpisingly enough, I ended up finding some things that I didn't really like about it, but the cool stuff (and there's a ton of it) became even better during this most recent viewing.

What "cool stuff" became even better this time around? Well, the suspense, for one thing. I don't think I ever really appreciated just how much of it is in this movie. Honestly, this is my favorite Hitchcock film, even though I always felt this didn't seem very Hitchcockian. That is, until I watched it again this weekend. There's so much suspense in this movie that I either didn't pick up on before, or I simply forgot about since the last time I watched it. But the suspense is there, and it's extremely well done (as you'd expect from Hitchcock).

Another great aspect to "North by Northwest" is the plot. It's such a fun scenario: Cary Grant as a normal guy who's mistaken for a spy and has to go on a cross-country chase as both a target for the bad guys and a fugitive from justice, all while trying to figure out what the heck is going on. (If that description doesn't peak your interest to see this movie, I'll assume you don't like adventures.)

And I have to mention how much I love James Mason as the villain. He is one of the coolest, most debonair bad guys ever (he's right up there with Hans Gruber from "Die Hard", in my opinion), and I admit that a big reason I feel that way is his voice. Take the following dialogue exchange, for example (my favorite line by James Mason):

Cary Grant's character: "Apparently the only role that will satisfy you is when I play dead."
James Mason's character: "Your very next role, and you'll be quite convincing, I assure you."

It takes an extremely cool, suave, and charming bad guy to pull off a line like that.

What Makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Even for being made in 1959, this is one of the best adventure movies ever. I may be a little biased since I love this movie so much, but AFI agrees with me, and even members of IMDB.com have ranked it as the #30 best movie of all time. So clearly my opinion isn't skewed from the overall public opinion very much. I just think it's a travesty it was only nominated for 3 Academy awards and didn't win any of them (though it did win a "Best Motion Picture" and "Best Action Drama" from other award ceremonies, as well as earned Alfred Hitchcock an International film festival award).

Complaints...
Now that I watched this with a more critical eye, I have found some things that prevent this from being a "perfect" movie for me. First, there are a few somewhat awkward moments in the acting that cause me to snicker, even when it's not supposed to be funny (nothing major or really worth noting, but they're there). The other thing I have a problem with is Cary Grant's mother being (and looking) the same age as him. Yes, the actress was funny and good in that role, but casting someone who looks like they actually COULD be his mother would have been better.

LET ME SUM UP...
"North by Northwest" is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's a great adventure film with plenty of suspense, funny moments, and classic scenes. Cary Grant and James Mason are so much fun as the protagonist and antagonist, and while there are some tiny bits of awkward acting, it's still a movie I love to own and watch regularly.

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

"The Grapes of Wrath" (1940)

Rank on the AFI List: #23

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
The only things I knew was that it starred Henry Fonda and was based on a book of the same name. I also had some pre-conceived notions that it took place in the deep South, was probably pretty boring, and quite depressing.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Out of my aforementioned pre-conceived notions, I was only correct about one of them. No, it was not set in the deep South; it begins in Oklahoma and ends in California. No, it was not boring at all. The 2 hours and 9 minutes were engaging and well-done. And while I was correct that it's a depressing movie, it is also one of the best movies I've ever seen.

I don't even know where to start about what made this so great. One thing I appreciated was the ensemble cast. Every single person in this movie - but particularly the Joad family - seemed born to play their roles. My wife even made the comment afterward that she couldn't tell if they were acting, or if they were just being themselves in the movie. The acting was that great all-around. Ma Joad (played by Jane Darwell, who won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress) was probably my favorite, but Henry Fonda (nominated for Best Actor) was amazing, too. After seeing this and "12 Angry Men", I can now say that I am without question a Henry Fonda fan.

The screenplay was also incredible. There were so many lines that encapsuled what "The Grapes of Wrath" is about. Here's a sampling of some of the lines that I found particularly poignant (though they may seem odd when left on their own and out of context as I'm about to do):

"This is my dirt! It's no good, but it's - it's mine. All mine."

"Seems like the government's got more interest in a dead man than a live one."

"They ain't human. Human being wouldn't live the way they do. Human being couldn't stand to be so miserable."

"Well, maybe it's like Casy says. A fellow ain't got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody, then..."

Just remembering some of these lines wrenches my heart, which brings me to my next point...

This is the most heart-wrenching movie I have ever seen. For practically the entire film you're seeing people getting "kicked while they're down". They lose practically everything that matters to them, and then they lose even more. They get exploited and taken advantage of, and then discarded like they're nothing. They get beaten down so much that hope is literally all they have left, but even that is almost gone. And in it all, I think that's what makes this such a powerful movie: it's an examination of the human heart, good and bad. There are those who depend on hope (the Joad family), those filled with compassion (the people in the truckstop - one of my favorite scenes, by the way), those drained of compassion (the Californians), and those filled with greed (the exploiters and many of the police).

Why is this a "Top 100" Movie?
This is a timeless story. As I just stated above, it's an examination of the human heart, so while it's set during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, "The Grapes of Wrath" does an amazing job of conveying humanity in it's most beautiful and ugly ways. On top of that, the acting was superb, the dialogue was powerful and deep, and I particularly liked the lighting in some scenes where they literally only used the flame of a match or lantern, letting the darkness and shadows take up a significant portion of the shot. This film was also nominated for seven Academy awards in 1940, and won 2 of them (including Best Director).

Complaint
The only blemish to this movie that my wife and I thought it had was the Socialist message. Granted, this movie came out at a time where workers WERE being exploited in many places around the country, and the Socialist movement hadn't yet been tested and found to be a poor system of government. But nonetheless, I can't give a movie that essentially endorses Socialism a perfect 10/10.

LET ME SUM UP...
I love this movie. It's incredibly powerful and has some of the best all-around acting and dialogue I have seen on film. This is not a movie to watch when you want to laugh (though there are a surprising number of truly funny parts that my wife and I laughed out loud at), and it's definitely not one to watch when you want to be uplifted or cheered up. But if you want to see a truly great film that says a lot about humanity, I highly recommend "The Grapes of Wrath".

MY RATING: 9.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMED WATCHED: 59

NO PREVIEW VIDEO AVAILABLE

"Easy Rider" (1969)

Rank on the AFI List: #84

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it's a "motorcycle across America" story of some sort.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I'm amazed. Not only did what I already knew about this movie end up being (almost) the entire plot, but I now dislike a film on the AFI list even more than I dislike "Nashville".

Now that I've watched "Easy Rider", I can add two little words to "motorcycle across America" and pretty much give you the entire plot: "drugs and motorcycles across America."

No backstories. No real character development. No explanation of what's going on or why characters are doing what they're doing. You're basically just spending 90 minutes of your life watching people get high while riding their motorcycles from California to Florida. It's also got a hippie commune, a New Orleans whorehouse, deep South rednecks, and a VERY annoying transition between some scenes. I hate this movie.

I also hated "Nashville", but the end of that film was surprising and at least said something politically. "Easy Rider" may have tried to say something, too, but I think only those who lived through the 60s can know what that is.

Why is this a "Top 100" Movie?
The ONLY (and I mean ONLY) reason I can think of is that it seems to epitomize the 60s counterculture. Perhaps the "American Film Institute" thinks it's important to honor movies that do nothing more than portray a particular culture in American history (but after watching this, I don't think it's THAT important).

Complaint
A group of people got together in 1969 and decided to make this movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
Crap. With motorcycles. Crap. With drugs. Crap.

MY RATING: 1/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 58

"The French Connection" (1971)

Rank on the AFI List: #93

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only 2 things:
1) It starred Gene Hackman
2) It has a famous car chase scene

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I knew I'd eventually get to a movie on this list that I wouldn't like. I was a bit surprised that it was "The French Connection."

This movie is based on a true story. It's about drug smuggling, but we were more than 30 minutes into the movie before my wife and I figured that out. For the vast majority of the film, the premise seemed to be: Watch detectives tail people and go on stakeouts. Apparently, there's no real need to let the audience know WHY you're tailing people (except for some VERY serendipitious observations in a bar), or WHO the guys are you're following. It felt like the movie just wants the audience to watch cops follow supposed bad guys (sometimes doing so very poorly).

The famous car chase scene was entertaining at least. It was cool to finally see, though it wasn't the type of car chase I was expecting since there was only one car involved. Nevertheless, it was the most entertaining part of the film.

There was another scene I thought was cool, when the cops COMPLETELY strip a car looking for drugs. Unfortunately, the follow-up to that scene was somewhat unbelievable and made the whole scenario less entertaining to me. New York cops are apparently SO good at putting a car they ripped apart back together in 4 hours that the owner of it still thinks it's in perfect condition.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Good question. Really. I don't know why this is considered such a great movie (it also won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director in 1971, so I must have missed something). It was certainly gritty, I'll give it that. And I could tell the cinematography was somewhat unique. But this film should not be on the AFI list, in my opinion, unless someone can explain to me the reason(s) it's considered one of the best movies ever made.

Complaints
I'll try to keep these short: the protagonist isn't very likeable; the plot wasn't really explained; there wasn't much of a climax; there wasn't much in the way of character development; it attempted to be more "real" and gritty at the expense of helping the audience follow the story (I think I had more complaints than that, but you get the picture).

LET ME SUM UP...
If you've ever watched Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K), there's one episode where they watch a really bad secret agent movie. There's a critical piece to its lame plot that the audience doesn't realize the main character already knows about until the very end of the movie. Once he explains that he already knew about it, one of the MST3K characters follows up with "I didn't tell the audience because I didn't feel they needed to know." I thought about this line several times while watching "The French Connection". All in all, this movie was less about the actual plot and more about watching detectives follow guys around the city and go on stakeouts. If it wasn't for the car chase scene, I would have given this a lower rating.

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 57

"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