Four Men vs. The 100 Greatest Movies

71 Saving Private Ryan

2010-08-10T21:06:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

As U.S. troops storm the beaches of Normandy, three brothers lie dead on the battlefield, with a fourth trapped behind enemy lines. Ranger captain Tom Hanks and seven men are tasked with penetrating German-held territory and bringing the boy home. Steven Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski paint a harrowing picture of the price of war and heroism -- one that netted them Oscars for Best Director and Best Cinematography, respectively.

Jason

Well, what I mean by that, sir, is... if you was to put me and this here sniper rifle anywhere up to and including one mile of Adolf Hitler with a clear line of sight, sir... pack your bags, fellas, war's over. Amen.

I don't know if I stated it on this blog but I'm not really a fan of war movies (I think I might have in Platoon). I'm not really sure why though. It could be because I have trouble watching tragedies made into entertainment, or maybe it's the fact that there's so much going on with bullets flying and random body parts being blown off its sometimes hard to focus on the story. I honestly think it's latter, but I like to think the former also plays a part.

That all being said I really enjoyed this movie. It didn't glorify war, or make it cool to kill the enemy or make it seem like anything but hell. When you watch the first 20 minutes you really get a feeling for how terrible D-day really was.

I think Spielberg was able to do something very few war movies directors are able to do. Instead of making the movie about the war, he used it as setting. So I was really concerned with seeing battles, or people die. I was more concerned with where Ryan was and whether or not they could save him.

Final Thoughts- Like I said, I enjoyed this movie. Though, I think this movie is on the cusp of being on my list. So if it does make it, its not above 90.

72 Shawshank Redemption

2010-07-29T16:45:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Framed in the 1940s for the double murder of his wife and her lover, upstanding banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) begins a new life at the Shawshank prison, where he puts his accounting skills to work for an amoral warden (Bob Gunton). During his long stretch in prison, Dufresne comes to be admired by the other inmates -- including an older prisoner named Red (Morgan Freeman) -- for his integrity and unquenchable sense of hope.

Jason

The first night's the toughest, no doubt about it. They march you in naked as the day you were born, skin burning and half blind from that delousing shit they throw on you, and when they put you in that cell... and those bars slam home... that's when you know it's for real. A whole life blown away in the blink of an eye. Nothing left but all the time in the world to think about it.

This movie is arguably the greatest movie of all time, but you don't have to take my word for it just checkout the Internet Movie Database's top 100 list. It continually fluctuates between the top 3 spots.

Now I could go on about how good the acting is or how well the screenplay was adapted from the book, but I honestly attribute a lot of what I like about this movie to one thing. Morgan Freeman.

Morgan Freeman in my opinion is on a very short list of actors who can do no wrong. Every movie he is in is elevated to a different level purely from his presence on screen. Plus, the man has a voice like silk. His narrating was very monotone, but not in the boring sense. It was more like a good friend telling you a story. You didn't need it to be all animated and over the top, just the words and the sound of his vioce are enough to keep you enthralled throughout the whole story.

Final Thoughts- I am well aware that this post has been more of a Morgan Freeman love fest then a review of Shawshank, but honestly this movie is awesome, just go watch it then you'll understand.

73 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

2010-07-17T21:05:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Legendary outlaws Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) display their gifts for perfect comedic timing and charisma as they pull off heist after heist in this Academy Award-winning film from director George Roy Hill. To evade a relentless posse, the boys flee to Bolivia, thinking they'll find easier pickings there. But trouble finds the charming desperadoes wherever they go, prompting yet another run.

Jason

Rain drops keep falling on my head.

In case you forgot, or if you didn't read it, the last western we watched was never even finished. So when I sat down for this movie I was nervous, not like uncomfortable just not in the mood to sit through another boring western. Fortunately, I was pleasently surprised.

This movie was far from the greatest thing on earth, but it had a charm. A great deal of this charm is from the fact that both Newman and Redford are superb actors. They gave life and individuality to two very similiar characters.

Another part of this movies charm is it's choice of music. Watching Newman riding that bike around
while hearing the song my quote was from was ridiculous. Ridiculous but charming non the less.

Final thoughts- If your looking for a bad ass gunslinging western, starring a grizzled old cowboy don't watch this movie. It never really takes itself to seriously and is kinda fun. I wouldn't put it on my list but it is a western I don't dislike, which is saying a lot actually.

74 Silence of the Lambs

2010-07-14T18:36:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
In this pulse-pounding adaptation of Thomas Harris's novel, FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) ventures into a maximum-security asylum to pick the diseased brain of Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a psychiatrist turned homicidal cannibal. Starling needs clues to help her capture a serial killer; unfortunately, her Faustian relationship with Lecter soon leads to his escape … and now, two deranged killers are on the loose.

Jason

You see a lot, Doctor. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don't you - why don't you look at yourself and write down what you see? Or maybe you're afraid to.

This movie is the quintessential suspense movie. Do I really have to say anymore. I know this is one of those movies that I could write on and on about, but I feel like if you've seen this movie before you know why its so good, and if you haven't then you should crawl out of the rock you've been living under and go see it.

The one thing that I would like to comment on that I think few people ever really think about is the title. Think about it, this line is said once and the story its from has almost nothing to do with the plot. Yet, I feel like the title fits the movie so well. It's kind of a hard thing to explain, but I guess I just wanted to point out that for a title that has nothing to do with the plot it fits the movie so well.

Final thought- Obviously this goes on my list. It is definitely in the top twenty, but could be as high as my top ten.

75 In the Heat of the Night

2010-07-06T18:33:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
Philadelphia detective Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) helps a redneck Southern sheriff (Rod Steiger) solve a murder in this fascinating study in racism that still strikes a resonant chord today. Steiger won a Best Actor Oscar for his performance as the put-upon sheriff who comes to respect Tibbs's professionalism and ability. Norman Jewison directs this dramatic tale with a feeling for the cultural and social atmosphere of the time.

Jason

They call me MISTER Tibbs!

I've found it! I've found the whole reason I started this project.

For those of you who don't know I am a movie buff (which I guess is given since I'm doing this project), but I always felt like I've heard of every good movie out there. Then I found this list and realized I had never even heard of quite a few of these. This led me to believe that I was missing something and this movie proves it. Up until the time I watched it three days ago I had never even heard of it, and without this list I probably never would have, and it was great. I can only hope that as we get farther down the list this happens more and more.

Like I said this movie was great. I haven't seen a good detective movie in a really long time. I was enthralled by it's twists, and loved that I was able to figure out who the killer was along with Sydney Poitier.If I had to make one complaint about the movie it would be that once they told you who did it they didn't really give you time to think about the clues that led up to him being the one, they jumped right into more story.

I also enjoyed that this movie wasn't just your normal detective movie. It has a twist that gives it the edge over what is probably 100 similar movies. Using a small, racist town as a setting with a black detective gave the story a chance to not only be about a crime, but was also a chance for characters to change and develop in ways that other similar movies could not. My favorite example of this is the respect that Mr. Tibbs had earned from Gillespie.

One last thing I'd like to point out is my quote. Through out this project I have tried to avoid the popular quote. You know the quote that everyone thinks of when you talk about the movie (i.e. "I See Dead People" or "Run Forrest Run"). I do this not because I don't like the lines but because I don't always think that they are the most important lines in the movie. The reason I bring this up is because I did in fact pick the most popular line in the movie (I think its like number 44 on the AFI 100 greatest quotes list). I picked it because it was impactful. It was delivered perfectly and it actually gave me chills.

Final Thoughts- This movie is in my top 40. Its fucking awesome.

76 Forrest Gump

2010-06-11T11:31:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
Winner of six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, director Robert Zemeckis's charming blend of comedy and drama stars Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump, a simpleminded man who finds himself in the middle of nearly every major event of the 1960s and '70s. Along the way, he makes friends, changes lives and searches for a soul mate. Hanks nabbed a Best Actor Oscar for his remarkable portrayal of the unsophisticated yet surprisingly wise Forrest.

Bryan

"Lieutenant Dan got me invested in some kind of fruit company. So then I got a call from him, saying we don't have to worry about money no more. And I said, that's good! One less thing."

So in my attempt to write a balanced review of Forrest Gump, I tried to figure out what I could criticize it for, and I had a lot of trouble finding anything worth writing. In every respect that is important to me, this film is solid.

Tom Hanks is fantastic. As I was trying to pick which quote to choose for my review, I realized how important Hank's delivery is. Many of the quotes seem bland when written out, and yet when read by Hanks is gut wrenching, or hilarious, or touching. I can totally understand why one of the six Oscars was to Hanks for best Actor.

We spent a lot of time discussing the visual effects during this screening, another aspect of the film that won it an Oscar. It was worth discussing, because the first few times I saw the film I didn't even recognize some of the effects as effects. I guess that's the mark of quality- their CGI stood out because it was indistinguishable to me from reality. An important part of that was that it wasn't over the top- they weren't making 4 story tall monsters from outer space, but removing legs from an actor. It required much less suspension of disbelief. The scenes where Hanks was added to historical footage was obviously not genuine, but it was believable and very well done. For the most part the effects were seamless, and were used very well. In an industry that at the time was falling in love with computer graphics, the effects were not lifted up as a central point of the film. Very few viewers went to see the film for the cool effects; the film was visually stunning more through classic approaches to cinematography than new technology. The effects were a way to open doors for the plot, rather than being visual-effects driven. I like that.

The old icon of theater (the smiling and frowning masks) comes to mind when I think of this movie. I ran through a broad spectrum of emotions while following Gump's travels, and that's not easy. I'm not sure which it did better. The funny parts didn't seem like simple comic relief, but felt like part of a real comedy, while the drama was more heart-wrenching than the conflict in a normal comedy. Awesome. Finely done.

Final Thought- This is certainly a top 100 movie, and I think it will be even higher on my list. There were discussions during Titanic about the "broadness" of the audience, and I would argue that this is a film that has across-the-board appeal. A fantastic film, and no longer being overplayed. (There was a while where ever poor kid running on the sidewalk was greeted with a "Run, Forrest, Run!!!" I'm glad that malarkey has died down.) Thumbs up.

Jason

God damn it, Gump! You're a god damn genius! This is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard. You must have a goddamn I.Q. of 160. You are goddamn gifted, Private Gump.

This movie is very hard for me to talk about. Not because it effects me in some profound way, or because I have a problem with it. It's really because I'm kinda indifferent to it. I mean I know this movie is good, it does a lot of things right, but I watch this movie and it doesn't really do anything for me.

I've been told on several occasions that I have an odd taste in movies. Not because I like weird movies (though I do like some really odd movies), but because I don't like movies I probably should. I'm having trouble thinking of an example, but if you ask any of my closest friends they will agree with me on this. Honestly they were the ones who pointed it out in the first place. I think Forrest Gump falls into that category for me. The movie is a fun time and all but I just don't feel a real connection to it. Maybe its because the story seems so far fetched to me, or maybe its because I have a problem liking movies that everyone else likes. Who knows, but whatever it is this movie just doesn't, figuratively, blow my skirt up.

Final Thoughts- All that being said I actually would actually put this movie on my list. Its not the greatest ever, but tt does a lot of things right and is a fun time as long as I don't watch it to often. I would put it number 75 on my list so its pretty much spot on.

77 All The President's Men

2010-06-08T16:05:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
The film that launched a thousand journalism school students, All the President's Men chronicles how the work of reporters Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) contributed to the public downfall of President Richard M. Nixon. The duo connected a Washington, D.C., hotel break-in with a Nixon "dirty tricks" team assigned to discredit Democratic rivals, launching a series of tense events that forced Nixon to resign.

Bryan

"If you're gonna do it, do it right. If you're gonna hype it, hype it with the facts. I don't mind what you did. I mind the way you did it."

This was a great story, and I'm glad they made a movie out of it. That said, this was more like a history channel special than one of the greatest films of all time. I was interested by how little attention was paid to the Watergate story at first, which makes the fact that Woodward and Bernstein ran down all these leads as much more impressive.

The film was interesting, but not captivating. It wasn't an experience I'll remember, it didn't change my views on the subject, and it didn't leave me wanting more. It was illuminating on the subject, but not wondrously entertaining.

Final Thought- I'm glad I saw this film, but I don't think I'd suggest it to others that weren't interest in this subject matter specifically. If journalism or history is a passion of yours, this was a very well made dramatization of the Watergate scandal. But it doesn't stand alone as a marvel of film making. It won't be on my list.

Jason

You're both paranoid. She's afraid of John Mitchell, and you're afraid of Walter Cronkite.

Bryan pretty much said it all so I'll just summarize my thoughts. The movie is an excellent portrayal of a historical moment, but entertaining it is not. I know this event in history was important for
America, but I don't understand why someone would think that a history lesson would make a good movie. Even with two powerhouse actors, this movie just doesn't do it for me.

Final Thoughts- This movie is boring, so boring in fact that I was dozing off through out the film. This movie is obviously no where near my top 100

78 Modern Times

2010-06-07T17:20:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
The Little Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) battles it out with technology, unemployment, jail, demanding customers and more in this classic film, in which he wins some, loses more and, in the end, walks undaunted into the sunrise. Known as Chaplin's last silent film, Modern Times is anything but -- from the opening notes of the rich score to the first and last time the star's voice is heard, the film speaks with a clear, well-rounded resonance.

Jason

Hey you! Get back to work!

After watching Sunrise I was afraid of all the other silent films on the list. It would seem that maybe silent doesn't have to mean bad, though I don't quite think I'm ready to say it means good either, at least not yet.

This is the first time I've ever seen an entire Charlie Chaplin movie (I've seen short clips before). To be honest I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. He was ridiculous in every aspect and lived up to his hype. The problem is this type of physical comedy isn't really my thing. I think that's why I enjoy the Marx Brothers so much. Their comedy has a physical aspect, but it's also there choice of language and the delivery of there lines that are so important, Groucho especially.

That being said I was definitely laughing out loud at this film. Especially during the first twenty minutes while he's working in the factory. Watching him waddle up and down the conveyor belt was really amusing. However, the best part was the eating machine. It was outrageous and perfectly executed.

Final Thoughts- Charlie Chaplin is an icon. While watching this movie it was very obvious that my childhood cartoons borrowed a lot of stuff from him. That being said this movie does not go on my list. It was an enjoyable time, but not one of the 100 greatest.

79 The Wild Bunch

2010-05-31T02:14:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Director Sam Peckinpah's brilliant 1969 Western epic tells the story of a bunch of aging outlaws, led by Pike Bishop (William Holden), whose botched plans to pull off one last job forces them to collude with a crooked Mexican general (Emilio Fernández) -- leading to ugly bloodshed. Ernest Borgnine, Ben Johnson and Jaime Sánchez co-star in this special edition, which includes never-before-seen outtakes and three exclusive documentaries.

Bryan

ZZZZZZZZZZ

This is the first movie on the list that I couldn't sit through. I've never really liked westerns, but there were other movies on the list that were outside my normal repertoire, and they all held my attention. This was just not interesting to me. I stopped watching. So unless the second half of the movie was the greatest thing ever recorded on film, this wasn't worth my time.

Jason

Like Bryan I had a lot of trouble sitting through this movie. I've never been into westerns, and this one was no different. Maybe it's the generic settings, or the over the top "manly" actors but something just doesn't work for me.

That being said I actually attempted to go back and rewatch this movie to give it another chance, but then the disc didn't work. I'm taking that as a sign to skip this one.

Final Thoughts- Since I never watched the whole movie I can't say anything official, but from what I did see this movie wouldn't be on my list.

p.s. If anyone has seen this movie and feels like I made a mistake by passing it then then leave a comment. Because as of right now I'm not going to go out of my way to watch it.

80 The Apartment

2010-05-26T22:06:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis ( from Netflix)

C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) has his future mapped out -- all he needs to do is cozy up to the top feeders in the corporate food chain. But his fast track to the executive suite gets short-circuited when he falls for one of the bosses' girlfriends. The Apartment features top-notch performances from Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine and was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning five, including Best Picture.

Bryan

"Ya know, I used to live like Robinson Crusoe; I mean, shipwrecked among 8 million people. And then one day I saw a footprint in the sand, and there you were."

This was a very good comedy. I am a fan of Jack Lemmon, and this oddball comedy is quite enjoyable. I was certainly amused, and enjoyed the screening. It's worth considering the fact that it could amuse me, even though I was born decades after it was made. The script has a distinctiveness that sets the film apart, dialogue-wise, and I think I liked it. It was different, but ballsy. I'm sure some of what I considered to be intentionally goofy wordage was actually simply the generation gap, but because it was already written to be a little beyond realism, the passage of time only intensified the desired effect.

This movie forced me to try and rank comedies, and I found it much more difficult than other genres. There are so many approaches to comedy, it is hard to pick which one ranks above another. Slapstick, satire, banter, black humor and more all have their place, and comparing comedies across these lines seems as difficult to me as comparing The Apartment to Spartacus. I guess I've always approached different kinds of humor as different genres in and of themselves.

That said, I don't think this is Lemmon's best comedy. I'd put Some Like it Hot ahead of this (not just because of Marlyn Monroe, but it helps), and I think I'd put How to Murder Your Wife ahead of this as well, comedy-wise.

Final Thought- This is good, and would go above 50 on my list of the greatest Comedies of all times. I don't think, however, it manages to break into my top 100 overall. It's good, and worth seeing, but not quite elite.

Jason

That's the way it crumbles... cookie-wise.

What makes a good comedy is not trying to be funny, just being funny. I think this movie succeeded at that better then any movie I've seen in a long time. Every line was delivered with excellent timing, but nothing seemed forced. The dialog was witty and clever, but not over the top. The plot was ridiculous, but not unbelievable. This movie is precisely what a situational comedy should be.

Jack Lemmon is a name that I've heard since I was little. Though I've always known him as an old man, a grumpy old man to be exact. This is the first time I've ever seen him in a movie that came out before 1990, and I was impressed. He plays the ordinary guy in an extraordinary situation perfectly. If I had to compare him to an actor today it would probably be Ben Stiller (Meet the Parents not Zoolander) and he is head and shoulders above him in comedic timing and acting ability.

Final Thoughts- As of right now this movie is going on my list, but I believe that there will be other movies that are better, yet similar enough that they both don't need a spot. I'm having trouble with it's position though. It's no higher then 50, but other then that I'm not exactly sure.

Bryan's Choice, The Untouchables

2010-05-22T10:50:00.002-04:00

Welcome to the first of 4 specialty posts. We decided that every 20 films we were going to do a review on a film chosen by one us that we think should be on the list of 100 greatest movies. The only stipulations are that the film has to have not been seen by more then two of us, and that this movie will appear on the chooser's final list of 100 greatest movies when we are done (meaning it should be fairly high so it won't get knocked off later).

Brief Synopsis (from Neflix)

G-man Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) will stop at nothing to take down legendary gangster Al Capone (Robert De Niro) -- even if it means bending some rules and breaking some bones! Sean Connery steals the show with his Oscar-winning performance of a tough-as-nails Chicago street cop who shows Ness the ropes. Director Brian De Palma based the climactic shootout on a classic scene from the silent film Battleship Potemkin.

Bryan

I obviously am a fan of this movie, as I nominated it as my guest choice. I was surprised that I was the only one of us four to have seen the movie. Not only is it a very well executed film, but it is so often quoted, referenced, and spoofed that it seems like one would miss quite a few punchlines by not knowing this classic.

I am not a fan of Kevin Costner in general, but he has a penchant for choosing fantastic roles. He doesn't grab attention every time he comes on screen, but he sure can pick the right scripts to agree to, and he doesn't ruin the films he participates in. Sean Connery, however, is a powerhouse. Every line he delivers in this film is saturated with attitude and charisma, and it plays wonderfully next to the straight man in Costner's Ness. I have to admit, any time I think of Sean Connery's later years, I think of this role. (I kind of put 007 as a whole different era in my mind, but in a lot of ways I prefer his later acting.)

DeNiro is great. He manages to show how Capone could manage to be simultaneously glamorous and ruthless. He can pizazz reporters with his talk, while ordering bombs to be left in populated ares to terrorize his enemies, and ordering a man's entire family killed out of spite. I particularly enjoyed the scene when he was listening to Pagliacci in his private balcony. He was moved to tears by the opera, but upon learning of his successful execution of a cop and witness, he subtly morphed from sobs to chuckles. Without saying a single word, DeNiro outlined the essential dissonance that makes characters like Capone so captivating, and terrifying.

I enjoyed how the set design showed the palatial homes Capone resided in, and the opulent treatment he enjoyed. It was starkly contrasted by Elliot Ness's domestic scenes. He was average for the time, and I can't imagine Capone's children staying up late to finish their ironing the way Ness's daughter did.

The costume design throughout was great- every suit was overseen by Georgio Armani himself. Very spiffy- along with the authentic automobiles used, it really helped set the film in the prohibition era. I want some of those suits.

I also like that it was inspired by the actual events. Surely it shouldn't be approached as a documentary, but it can draw interest in a crucial period in American history, and illuminate parallels to today. When contemplating stories about prohibition like this one, I can't help but think about the modern war on drugs, and all the violence associated with it.

Jay made a very good point about comparing this film to others in it's genre. I have done the same thing throughout this list. I would have to strongly disagree with his ranking, however. In my opinion, The Untouchables solidly beats Casino with plenty of room to spare, and easily stands toe to toe with Goodfellas. The Godfather outshines them all.

Final Thought - It'll certainly be on my list. Because it is so testosterone-ridden, it has a more limited audience than some films, so I'll place it when where in the last fifth.

Jason

You just fulfilled the first rule of law enforcement: make sure when your shift is over you go home alive. Here endeth the lesson.

The best and worst part of the movie industry is that when you watch a movie it's not done in a bubble. Every time you watch a movie you can't help but compare it to every other movie you have ever seen. I think that this fact is what caused me to have a lot of trouble enjoying this movie. I consider this to be a gangster movie, and while I know its not the same as say Godfather, Goodfellas or Casino where the plot follows the "bad guys", but I could not help but compare it to them. When you compare it to those three the movie it just doesn't hold up.

A lot of people praise the acting in this movie, and I will not tell you it was bad, but it was far from the best. I would say for me each actor was very hit or miss. I have never really been a fan of Kevin Costner, but I think he did a pretty good job. However, a pretty good job isn't good enough for the lead role if the movie is to be considered great. I love Robert DeNiro, though I didn't think this was his best role. I think this leads back to my original point. I've seen him play the greatest mob boss in film history, Vito Corleone. So I constantly felt myself looking for him to convey that same amount of power and be the guy that everyone feared and respected, and while the fear was definitely there I felt like the respect was not. I think the best actor in the film was Sean Connery, but I don't think I've ever actually seen him be bad in anything.

Final Thoughts- This movie is not bad, but it definitely does not go on my list. I actually don't think its even one of those movies that everyone has to see. This movie has a lot of hype behind and for me it didn't really live up to it.

81 Spartacus

2010-05-10T18:15:00.010-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Stanley Kubrick directed this epic saga based on ancient events, chronicling the birth of a vagabond slave-army led by an ex-gladiator named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) that threatens the sovereignty of all-mighty Rome. This film has everything, including a wonderfully funny (and Oscar-winning) performance from Peter Ustinov as the cowardly owner of a gladiator school. Laurence Olivier, Charles Laughton, Jean Simmons and Tony Curtis co-star.

Jason

I'm Spartacus

I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. The reason this is so surprising is because I am not really a fan of epic movies. I've always found movies like Brave Heart and Gladiator to be kinda boring. Though I'm not really sure why, they just don't really appeal to me. It feels like things not appealing to me is becoming a trend.

This movie was long, 2 hours and 40 minutes long, and I was entertained by like 95% of it, which like I said is good for me for an epic movie. I do remember a few parts were I got kinda confused and lost some interest. As I remember it was mostly scenes with the roman senate. Those parts were very hard to follow. Probably because they all looked the same and had these long three part roman names I never new who was talking to who.

Kirk Douglas was epic (pun intended). His inspirational speeches inspired me. I felt his triumphs and his loses like they were my own. During the famous scene my quote is from I actually get why his forces did that for him, and I attribute all of that to Kirk Douglas' acting. Without him I think this movie would have lost a lot. Perhaps even its place on this list.

I'm actually really excited to be writing this review. Not because of the movie I'm reviewing or because of who was in it, but because of its relation to another movie on this list, Ben-Hur. Ben-Hur and Spartacus have many similarities and I think you can almost directly compare them. So if you look at story, settings and acting I believe that Spartacus beats out Ben-Hur in every category. Which is funny because when I first watched this movie I wasn't going to put it on my list, but I said I would put Ben-Hur.

For the longest time I couldn't figure out why that was. What did Ben-Hur do better then Spartacus. Then I realized what the answer is, nothing. It wasn't anything one had done better then the other. The problem was I never saw Spartacus. I think this project is not only about what I enjoy and what I don't. Its also about growing as true film expert, and being able to say whats great and what isn't because I've seen all that the American film world has to offer.

Final thoughts- This movie and Kirk Douglas' chin are both really interesting and I think deserve to have a place on my list. Its not my favorite movie ever but I say its a s olidcontender for the #80 spot.

Bryan

"I'm Spartacus"

I'm impressed by this movie. It was big, and epic, emotional, and exciting. I was going to criticize it's length, and suggest that there were parts where some fat could have been trimmed, but so much plot was moved along that cutting would be much harder to do than I first thought. The complexity of the story was simultaneously a deterrent and an asset. There was so much story and so many characters that different audiences had plenty of things to draw their interest, but keeping so many balls in the air can become unwieldy. That is a common challenge in movies that take on this kind of subject matter, and on the whole it performed quite admirably. I have to admit that there was a 10-15 minute period at the middle of the film where I did pass out, but I'll chock that up more to the weaknesses of the flesh than to failure of the plot, because I genuinely enjoyed just about everything I was awake for.

I really liked the scene following the big battle. It was reminiscent of Renaissance paintings, as if it was a fresco depicting hell on the wall of a cathedral crypt. But since it was actual extras posing in death scenes on film, it was more gripping and stunning and horrifying than a paintbrush depicts. That was the scene where I was reminded, like a slap in the face, that this was a Kubrick film. It was unlike anything I've seen from a movie of this genre. It was wonderful.

Spartacus absolutely competes with other huge epics, a genre of film I tend to be a fan of. It easily outshines Ben-Hur, Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, Gladiator, Alexander, Gettysburg, and the Ten Commandments. It stands shoulder to shoulder next to the epic films I love, like Braveheart and The Lord of the Rings. Is Star Wars "Epic?" It wouldn't beat Star Wars, but that's a pretty high bar.

Kirk Douglass' chin is ridiculous. I'd feel lacking in my review if I didn't even mention it, because the cinematographer seemed to revel in it. Of course there was going to be a lot of close ups on the star's face, but the way they added makeup and lit the shots seemed to draw attention to it. There was always a shimmery halo around it. It made Douglass memorable and able to stand out in a crowd, and always drew my eyes to him. (In fact it makes me wonder whether the "I'm Spartacus scene" would really work- wouldn't the Romans have heard that Spartacus dons a Grand Canyon on his face?) It was distinctive and awesome.

Final Thought - I would certainly suggest this movie to others. People who enjoy the other films I listed would find it worth their time to sit through this one. It is long, but worthwhile. It certainly puts up a good effort towards being on the list of top 100 films. It will not be particularly high on the list; in fact it is low enough that in the final reckoning I wouldn't be surprised if it gets bumped past 100. But it's a serious contender.

Alfredo

I'm Spartacus!

I think it's important to start this post by mentioning the most prominent thing in this movie before anything else. Kirk Douglas has a chin and in this chin is not a cleft as one would expect to see but rather chasm from which nothing but the harshest of light can escape.

I rather liked this movie. In fact I liked it as much as I liked the first half of Ben-Hur. The two movies are rather similar in context and style. Had Ben-Hur not taken a turn for the worse after the second part it would have given Spartacus more of a run for it's money.

Final Thoughts- Although the lighting, I felt, was a bit harsher than necessary at times (it's the only way it can escape Douglas' chin) the movie itself was nicely done and although a little too well placed still deserves a slot on this list.

82 Sunrise

2010-05-06T18:21:00.002-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
Director F.W. Murnau's emotional odyssey stars George O'Brien and Janet Gaynor as a country couple whose marriage is threatened when O'Brien falls prey to cosmopolitan temptress Margaret Livingston's feminine wiles. Imbued with an intoxicating ambiance in style and substance, the lyrical silent film -- which is, by turns, quixotic, blissful, sensual and terrifying -- chalked up Academy Awards for Best Actress (Gaynor) and Best Cinematography.

Bryan

"...After the boat has capsized, save yourself with these bullrushes. The rushes will hold you up. Scatter them before you reach the shore and tell everyone she drowned by accident"

So this was the first full-length silent film that I've ever actually sat through. (I've seen most of Birth of a Nation, but approached it more as a historical document than entertainment.) I can appreciate why this was put on the list- it does illustrate the development of film.

But being a silent film makes me feel like it is almost an entire other genre altogether. We aren't including television programming, yet I would argue that the rest of the films on this list have more in common with modern television than with silent films. Other than being first viewed in a cinema, the approach to acting and storytelling is wholly different. So it's hard for me to try and rank this movie against the rest I've seen- I'm comparing Apples to PCs. (Or Oranges. Whichever cliche you prefer.)

I recognize some of the cinematography as very impressive. There was a scene where the man was imagining a woman putting her arms around him, and they superimposed an image shot at another time to give a ghostly effect. In all honesty, I wish modern cinema did more if this kind of visualization: Today they would have used computer generated special effects that in many ways lose the power of this kind of scene. Shots like that would have been quite impressive to audiences unaccostomed to special effects- I hail from a generation constantly pummeled with special effects and I was quite happy with it.

And quite a lot did happen, which surprised me. Since the dialog was reduced to 10 or 15 cards, I expected there to be less plot, but in actuality quite a complex story played out. This was surprising; quite a bit of important story and nuance were told without any lines at all. Despite my lack of experience, I can believe that this was one of the most effective silent films.

Final Thought- I undertsand the argument for including films such as this on the list, but it would not go on mine. It belongs on a film class syllabus, but I am not willing to tout it as a movie that most people need to have seen. If interested in the genre, then this may be a good way to begin a foray into silent films, but I don't think it stands up next to modern "talkies."

Jason

(No quote this time, I just felt like the text boxes wasn't worth posting)

So...umm...this movie is silent. I didn't know that until like 3 hours before I watched it. While for some people that isn't a big deal and I guess it could even make it more enjoyable, but for me it takes a lot away from the movie. I know I'm going to get a lot of complaints about this (especially from Steph), but the reason I dislike silent films is the same reason I dislike foreign films. A lot of what I enjoy about a movie is the way an actor delievers his lines. I mean think about it. What makes an actor great? Its his/her ability to deliever his/her lines in a very convincing way. So as soon as I have to start reading their lines I feel like a lot of the realism is lost

That being said I was very impressed with this movie. It conveyed a lot of story with very few of the texts boxes (I think in the last 45 minutes there was only one). The acting is very over the top, though that is necessary in silent films to get across the emotion, and honestly I did not hate this movie (which says a lot).

Final Thought- I didn't hate this movie, but that does not mean I liked it. It goes no where near my list of 100.

83 Titanic

2010-05-04T10:00:00.005-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Winner of 11 Oscars, James Cameron's effects-driven blockbuster puts a human face on a tragedy of epic proportions by wedding the historical tale of the doomed ocean liner with a fictional romance between two of the ship's ill-fated passengers. Society girl Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and penniless artist Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) struggle to survive both the sinking ship -- and the wrath of Rose's wealthy fiancé (Billy Zane).

Jason

Winning that ticket, Rose, was the best thing that ever happened to me... it brought me to you. And I'm thankful for that, Rose. I'm thankful. You must do me this honor, Rose. Promise me you'll survive. That you won't give up, no matter what happens, no matter how hopeless. Promise me now, Rose, and never let go of that promise.

What can I say about this movie that hasn't already been said. I mean its the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time. When it came out I was in 7th grade and I remember some of the girls competing to see who could see it the most in theaters. I believe the winner saw it 11 times. So for someone to sit through a 3 hour and 15 minute long movie over and over and over again, it must of done something right.

Actually, I kinda think it did everything right. I mean the story is great, the characters are great and the movie was visually stunning. However I think this movie has one problem, its audience is not that broad. Its kinda the quintessential chick flick (so then I guess it is a broad audience, get it broad). Which I think my quote shows perfectly. Its that sappy love story line that makes for a real tear-jerker. I don't think I personally know one guy who saw this because he wanted too. Most were either doing it because there girlfriend wanted to, or so that they could impress a girl by being able to talk about it.

Final Thought- This movie is good, Cameron did a great job of putting two young lovers on the worlds most famous boat and not making the the story talk to much about either one, but it is not my type of movie. It does not go one my list, but I do recommend that if you've never seen grab your significant other and do so.

Bryan

"Hello Detective" (Okay, that's not a real quote, but I spent the entire movie hoping David Warner's character would say it. How about...

"It was a ship of dreams to everyone else. To me it was a slave ship, taking me back to America in chains. Outwardly, I was everything a well brought up girl should be. Inside, I was screaming."

So I was not a fan of Titanic when it first came out, and so I wasn't particularly looking forward to this screening. It was certainly better than I remember, but I still don't think it quite makes the list of the greatest ever.

This is a good story, and it was a great setting to force tragedy upon a love story to keep it novel and different from the multitudes of other tales of love. The narration by old Rose set the stage for the story very well, and was delivered phenomenally. Billy Zane was a little over the top as a scorned lover, but for the most part the acting was up to snub.

Titanic did many things very well, and did keep me interested. It didn't blow my hair back, and there are quite a few movies that would go onto my list way ahead of Titanic. That said, I can understand why someone else would put it on theirs.

Final Thought - This movie had such a huge impact on society and the film industry, I can understand why it should deserve a place on lists like these. It did not truly move me, neither as a love story, nor as an epic adventure, and so it does not come close to making my top 100. But it had potential, and can understand why some were moved.

Angel

That's the one good thing about Paris: there's a lot of girls willing to take their clothes off.

Can I just say that the first time I saw this I hated it. Like really really hated it. I am not really sure why I hated it so much. It might have had something to do with my strong distaste of Leo DiCaprio. By Might I mean my strong desire to see him die as painfully as possible in every role I had ever seen him in. Thankfully though I gave Leo and this movie a second chance. I found out that I actually liked this film. (SPOILER) Though I must admit he does die, so maybe that helped.

Something that I appreciated both times that I watched Titanic was the ship actually going down. Being young and watching the ship go down, it was a great CGI scene like never before. Not to mention it was the entire reason that I went to go watch it the first time. The second time around it felt a little different. It still felt like the entire point of the film was to watch the thing go down, but I was much more interested in the dynamic of the people on the ship rather than just watching the ship go down. Also this time since I had been spoiled by the wonder of modern technology I was much more aware of the moments where the CGI was quite obviously CGI. To be frank thought the film holds up pretty well for have being made in 1997.

Final Thoughts- I did enjoy this film exponentially more than I did the first time I watched it, but I still do not feel like I would have it on my list. I am on the other hand looking forward to seeing what beat this out and to some of the films I have seen already and comparing them to this. The characters seemed more realistic this time around. Both Leonardo DiCaprio as a youthful vagabond letting life take him where ever it may lead and Kate Winslet as a pompous spoiled daughter of the rich who will bend to no man and wants to take control of her own life. This time around they felt like they had both personality and weight to the character. Billy Zane was awesome as the rich bastard who wants Kate Winslet for his own. I spent the entire movie waiting for someone to punch him in the face. I suppose it took me being a little older to take the time to appreciate the actors and their performances.

Alfredo

You shine up like a new penny.

It may actually be safe to say that the first time we all saw this movie we didn't care much for it. Honestly though could you really blame us? We were twelve at the time and didn't really care much for good acting regardless of the the special effects that were strapped on with it. It was all Leo this and Leo that, and frankly the last thing a pre-teen boy wants to hear is about how dreamy someone is.

That was then though. Now, I'm a older, wiser and more mature (not by much though) and I can genuinely appreciate this film. I could honestly pick out how each performance from Kate Winslet's to Kathy Bates were phenomenally portrayed but it almost seems moot.

Hell I want to go on and on about a lot of things. The costumes were fantastic, the CGI, although obviously dated, was at times awe inspiring. Even the sound track did a great job of pulling me in. Again though it seems almost pointless. This movie won eleven Oscars for a reason. Including Best Picture and I think it deserved them. The only real issue I had with the movies was that I knew Rose was never really in any danger and I'm enough of a history buff to know that at the end, the boat sinks.

Final Thoughts - I obviously liked this movie, which is more words than I would have said about it thirteen years ago. I'm still not entirely sure I'd put this on my own personal list. It's close, so close in fact that it would probably only miss by a movie or two.

84 Easy Rider

2010-04-30T16:19:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

With cash from a cocaine sale, freewheelers Billy and Wyatt hop on their motorcycles and ride across America toward New Orleans. Along the way, they add boozy lawyer George to their trouble-finding, society-questioning entourage. Dennis Hopper writes, directs and stars in this landmark 1960s counterculture film; Peter Fonda co-writes and co-stars. Jack Nicholson earned a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his role as George.

Jason

No, man, like hey, man. Wow. I was watching this object man, li-like the satellite that we saw the other night, right? And, like, it was going right across the sky, man, and then... I mean it just suddenly, uh, it just changed direction and went whizzin right off, man. It flashed...

This movie is not at all what I expected. Which is weird because I had no clue what to expect, but I guess I just thought the way that this movie played out was kinda the last way that I expected it to (that sentence is so convoluted because I don't want to spoil anything). The first thing that I noticed about this movie was the editing. At first I thought it was just poorly done because it would keep cutting a scene off and then starting a new scene the next day. At first this bothred me, but then someone else pointed out how cool that effect was because it only happened when they were high. Once given that new point of view I realized that the effect was very well done and almost gave the effect of being drunk or high and forgeting parts of the evening.

About an hour into the movie I realized the movie has no plot. Now in most cases this would really bother me, but in this movie it didn't. I'm not really sure why though. Maybe it was the fact that the characters were interesting enough that I didn't care what they did, I just cared that they did something. It could also be that the lack of plot increased that feeling of being drunk or high, and it gave you that feeling of being with them along for the ride. Whatever it was this movie without a plot was certainly more interesting then a lot of movies I have seen with a plot.

I would not be doing this movie justice if I did not mention what I felt was the best part of it. Jack Nicholson was great, and I don't just mean the normal type of great that we tend to throw around a lot when writing these reviews. Everytime he was on screen not only was he excellent but everyone else was better also. I really can't say enough good about him. If nothing else you should watch this movie to see Jack in his "awesome" motorcyle helmet.

Final Thoughts- This movie is very good, but I don't know if it would go on my list. Its definately on the cusp though. I would say if it did go on my list it wouldn't be any higher then 90.

Bryan

"Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom? Thats what it's all about!

George Hanson: Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em."

This is a very good movie. It is iconic, and is an interesting view of the culture of the sixties. It was set up like the Odyssey- they knew where their destination was, and their mode of transportation, but the movie is about the unexpected twists and turns that get them there. The cliches about voyages and destinations apply here- it is the story of a voyage. And quite a trip it was.

Since it was a road trip, many of the scenes do not have much to do with each other, and this allowed the film to include an odd array of human interactions. The family that they meet in the begining- who allows them to fix a spare tire and then serves them dinner- is the relationship with the least surprises, and so it makes sense that it went first. Looking back upon all that happened to them after that, the tranquility of that stop and the calm approach that the movie began with is a stark contrast.

Jack Nicholson is awesome. His facial expessions are amazing, and he steals every scene he is in. It's not that Dennis Hopper or Peter Fonda are not good too, but Nicholson is at a whole 'nother level. I wish I was watching that campfire scene with Nicholson again right now. "You ever talk to bullfrogs in the middle of the night?"

It is also gut wrenching and sad at times. Without giving away too much, the movie leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, because it isn't a fairy tale ending. And the ending followed an LSD scene that was absolutely something that makes me think of the sixties, but also made me feel a little queasy. It was well done, and intended to be that way, but it's not a "feel good" kind of conclusion.

At one point while watching, Alfredo noticed a scene that he realized was an influence on Salt Lake City Punk, and it made me ponder the two films' similar portrayal of the counterculture. By modern standards, guys on bikes are not particularly taboo, but that is because of a generational gap- my father grew up through these times, and so I see many of the imagery that was intended to be rebelous as almost paternal. The long hair and beard that so insulted patrons at the Louisiana diner hardly seem that ridiculous to me; plenty of old timers look like that. In many ways, the counterculture today is rebelling against that previous rebellion, and has taken taboos much furthur. The film did a very good job of showing how their approach to life really was different and strange to some, and even threatening.

Final Thought- I clearly liked this movie. It is different from most of the movies I'm drawn to, and I'd say that's a good thing. It had lofty goals, and for the most part, it delivered.
I'm not sure, though, whether it'll make my list. Again, I'm unsure what measurement to use. It is an important film, and one that I would suggest everyone see, but I'm am not going to buy it and watch it often. It is a contender, but I think it falls short of making the top 100.

Alfredo

Like a true nature's child

We were born, born to be wild

We can climb so high

I never want to die

-Steppenwolf

If ever there was a song that described this movie then this is it. Which would explain why it was in the soundtrack. Easy Rider was a good movie. The soundtrack, however, was the catalyst (for myself anyway) that bumped this movie from being good to great.

Let me start off by saying quickly that although he has a small role in this film Jack Nicholsen shines as he always does. Now that the obligatory praise to Mr. Nicholsen is over and done with I'll get to the meat.

I've seen a lot of movies about hippies, the Sixties and The Summer of Love. I think I like this one the most though. It does a fantastic job of showing you what life was really like on a commune, on the road and it a town where your counter-culture just is not wanted.

In the first half of the movie Billy and Captain America meet up with a good for nothing waste of space hippie and he takes them to his commune. There he explains to them that most of the people living there are little more than just city kids. They don't really know how to farm or how to survive out in the wild. They're starving. That scene alone peaked my interest with this movie. Almost every movie I've ever seen about the counter culture during the Sixties seems to romanticize it. As if it were all just drugs, free love and no hardships. This movie did a great job of showing the harsher side of the life.

Final Thoughts- When this movie first started I was slightly bummed, I didn't really know what it was about and thought it was ust going to be another hippie movie. I was wrong, and I'm glad about it. Fonda, Hopper and Nicholsen all do stand up jobs and the sound track does a a fantastic job of immersing the viewer deeper and deeper into the film. This movie not only deserves to be on this list but is certainly goign on mine as well.

85 Night at the Opera

2010-04-26T19:06:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

The Marx Brothers -- Groucho, Harpo and Chico -- wreak havoc in the opera house in one of their biggest hits. Penned by Morrie Ryskind and George S. Kaufman, the film contains perhaps the greatest comic bit the Marxes ever pulled off: the crowded stateroom scene. Kitty Carlisle and Allan Jones are charming as the singing romantic leads whom the Marxes help transform into big-time opera stars.

Jason

I have here an accident policy that will absolutely protect you no matter what happens. If you lose a leg, we'll help you look for it.

I love the Marx Brothers. Some of the stuff they did was hilarious. However, this movie is not. I mean don't get me wrong this movie had some really funny parts, but as whole I think its much worse then many of the Marx Brother's other movies.

I think this movie did a really good job of showing the potential of the Marx Brothers, but if I was trying to show someone how funny they were I would not show them this whole movie. I would probably only show them two scenes. The first being the one when they first get on the boat and fit like 14 people into a room big enough for maybe 6 people. The second being the scene when they are moving furniture back and forth while hiding from the inspector or what ever he was.

As I write this and am thinking about these scenes and I am actually giggling. Very few comedians make me laugh from just thinking about there jokes. I think that is whats so great about the Marx Brothers. Not only are they funny the first time you see them, but they are funny the second and the third time as well.It is a rare talent to be that funny and am glad that these three were able to put that talent to such good use.

I have thought of one more scene worth showing someone who is interested in the Marx Brothers. The scene where Harpo plays the Harp. I know this scene is not funny at all, but if you know anything about the Marx Brothers you know that in every movie they find a way for Harpo to get a harp (hence his name), and honestly it is just a really odd yet really cool talent for a comedian.

Final Thoughts- This movie does not go on my list. Both Day at the Races and Duck Soup are much better and would be put them on my list much sooner then this movie.

Bryan

"[Disguised as one of the world's greatest aviators] So now I tell you how we fly to America. The first time we started we got-a half way there when we run out a gasoline, and we gotta go back. Then I take-a twice as much gasoline. This time we're just about to land, maybe three feet, when what do you think: we run out of gasoline again. And-a back-a we go again to get-a more gas. This time I take-a plenty gas. Well, we get-a half way over, when what do you think happens: we forgot-a the airplane. So, we gotta sit down and we talk it over. Then I get-a the great idea. We no take-a gasoline, we no take-a the airplane. We take steamship, and that friends, is how we fly across the ocean."

I'm not a fan. I've seen Marx Brothers comedies that I've enjoyed, but this one just seemed to go on for too long without much payoff. I'm not a huge fan of the goofy comedy, and so Marx brothers isn't my favorite approach to humor to start with, and I just don't feel that this was executed well.

It wasn't bad. I enjoyed it, but I was glad that I had company while watching it, because it's not something that could have held my attention alone. I'd suggest Marx brother comedies to people, but this isn't the one I'd mention.

Final Thought- On a list of the greatest performers of all time, the Marx brothers absolutely have a spot. This specific film, however, does not make the cut.

Angel

This was a very interesting film for me to watch. Firstly because it was such an old movie (1935). Secondly because it is my first Marx brothers movie. I was not really sure what to expect. I must say I feel too young to have been able to truly enjoy this film.

I say that because the movie did one thing really really well. That being the set up for a joke. As the viewer you always knew what was a regular conversation and what was supposed to be a joke. That always let me know where people were supposed to laugh. The downside was that it also was blatantly obvious when a joke or comment went over my head.

That one fact alone, I feel, is the biggest issue that I had with the film. All of the other parts I could understand or appreciate. We have, because of this list, also seen a few "song and dance" movies, so I have become used to them and their issues with continuity and plot holes. The rest of the film is passable for the most part and I really enjoyed the scene where the piano and harp were played. Yet, I was not able to look beyond the fact that I could not really enjoy the comedy of the film.

Final Thoughts- Most of the things that I had issues with did not amount to the parts that I did like. All in all I really did like the film, it just kinda hurt that I could not enjoy the one thing that everyone raves about.

Alfredo

I saw Mrs. Claypool first. Of course, her mother really saw her first but there's no point in bringing the Civil War into this.

I feel as though it'll be hard to judge this movie and the other movie they've done without mentioning their impact on pop culture.Although I've never seen a Marx Brothers film I still spent most of the movie thinking to myself this is comedic gold. Bugs has done that before, Robin Williams as the Genie did that. Which I think is in part why I didn't enjoy this movie as much as I could have. As far as I was concerned, it's all been done. It was all by only their greatest admirers and predecessors of course but that I suppose is part of my problem. I suppose I was looking for some new type of laugh of out loud funny, but that's not what I got. I got mastered classic comedy the same thing I've seen over and over again.

Final Thoughts - Had I seen this movie before I was "tainted" by Saturday Morning cartoons, Looney Tunes and scores of comedians I probably would have enjoyed the movie a lot more. It's strange, I suppose, to be more entertained by the student rather than the master. I appreciate who they are and what they did for comedic timing and I can see why at least one of their movies (two were) had to be put on this list, but that aside this film just didn't do it for me.

86 Platoon

2010-04-22T19:22:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
Helmed by Oliver Stone, this searing autobiographical drama chronicles the Vietnam experiences of naïve volunteer soldier Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen), whose view of the conflict starts to change after witnessing murder and rape at the hands of his compatriots. Platoon won Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director, with Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe earning supporting actor nods as rival topkicks who offer Sheen contrasting role models.

Jason

I told the padre the truth, man: I like it here. You get to do what you want. Nobody fucks with you. The only worry you got is dyin', and if that happens you won't know about it anyway. So what the fuck, man?

You ever watch a movie and see an actor and go "I didn't know he was in this". Well every time a new character appeared on screen I did that. I mean I knew Charlie Sheen was in this, since this movie is what made his career, but I had no clue that some great actors like Forest Whitaker, Johnny Depp and Willem Dafoe were in it as well.

I can't say enough about how good the cast was in this movie. Everyone was great at filling there role in the story, but I think there were three people who were head and shoulders above everyone else. First and foremost is Charlie Sheen. I mean he is far from the world's greatest actor, but in this movie he was great. I really believed in his misery. While he's digging the hole at the beginning of the movie you can just see how defeated he looks, and its only 10 minutes into the movie. He sets a tone that is carried out through the whole film. War sucks, but we're here so lets make the best of it.

The other two important actors are both equally well done and the movie would have suffered if either role was not executed perfectly. They are of course Williem Dafoe and Tom Berenger. What I found to be most interesting with these two is that both actors were playing roles opposite what they usually do. What I mean is Berenger usually plays good guys and Dafoe usually plays bad guys, but in this they switched. Tom Berenger is playing the "bad guy" of the movie, and he did an excellent job of being the compassion-less war hardened leader. While Williem Dafoe was the "good guy" of the movie. He was more like a mentor to Charlie Sheen's character and during the scene in the village he was defending the Vietnamese against Berenger.

Final Thoughts- This movie is good. If I was making a list of some of the greatest war movies ever I would definitely place this near the top. That being said I would not put this on my list. I'm not really a fan of war movies so this really isn't something I would watch again.

Bryan

"I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves. And the enemy was in us. The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, for the rest of my days. As I'm sure Elias will be, fighting with Barnes for what Rhah called possession of my soul. There are times since, I've felt like the child born of those two fathers. But be that as it may, those of us who did make it have an obligation to build again. To teach to others what we know. And to try, with whats left of our lives, to find a goodness and meaning to this life."

This was a quality movie. In general, I am not a fan of war movies, but this one was effective, I have to admit. What struck me about the movie was how much it was designed to mirror the domestic angst during the war. The two potential role models that Charlie Sheen's character had to look to were personifications of the war as a whole, as seen from different perspectives. Two sides of the same coin in many ways, which is why they were effective supporting characters, but would not have been effective choices for main character (even though both of them were infinitely more interesting than Sheen). America was struggling with itself, and in many ways will never be the same again because of it's experience with Vietnam. Oliver Stone took that general experience and conveyed it as a personal, individual story. At the very end of the movie, images of each character were shown with the names of the actors that portrayed them. The scene they chose for Sheen was him stepping off the plane when he first arrived in Vietnam, and the stark contrast between that man and the one that in the last scene was striking.

The movie made me uncomfortable. Honestly, if it didn't I'd have been worried. This wasn't Forrest Gump's portrayal of the war; it was designed to be gritty, uncomfortable, testosterone-filled and rough. This isn't a movie I'd watch often, it's depressing and emotionally draining. But it is a landmark. As Jason mentioned, the acting is phenomenal. The roles of Elias and Barnes were the most crucial; WIllem Dafoe and Tom Berenger were genius.

Final Thought I'm not sure if this would make my list, but it sure has a lot going for it. If it makes it it will be relatively low, close to where it it is now (86). But a lot of this one comes down to personal preference. The movie doesn't speak to me, but I absolutely appreciate it's power.

Angel

Is it possible to think that a movie is good and not really enjoy it? Thinking back on this film that is something that comes to mind. I find that I find many things to appreciate about the film but overall, I am not sure if I liked it.

Let us start with the good. The set design is fantastic. The lush forest filled with mosquitoes. The lighting, the shadows, it all lent to a feeling of being in a humid foreign land. At every turn it felt as if you were following these soldiers as they participated in the war. The jungle itself almost had a personality of its own, adding to the ambiance. It was a great set piece for the actors.Speaking of the actors, they did fantastic. Charlie Sheen as a relative newbie in warfare, facing the moral crisis that I can only imagine all soldiers must face. At his side are Willem Dafoe as Sgt Elias a man with a morale compass not to be trifled with. At the other end is Tom Berringer as Sgt Barnes, a man who has seen the terrors of war and has become tainted by them. He acts as the best way to end the war is to leave no one on the other side alive. You can feel the tension between these two characters as they battle for control over each other and the war. This conflict outside the war is a story itself.

The only real problem that I have with this is a culmination of all of the things that are so great with the movie. That is the realism. The film was done so well, the characters blended so well and the war seemed so real that I coul not enjoy the film. There was a sadness that you felt watching this, because it almost felt more real than a documentary. In a documentary you see people talking about the horrors of war, here you saw it and felt it.

Final Thoughts- This is a great movie and I think everyone should see it. I am not sure if it would be on my list but I would recommend it. I thnk all movies that try to tell the truth about wars try to give the feelings that I had with this film

87 Twelve Angry Men

2010-04-13T12:55:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
Knowing full well that a guilty verdict means death, a jury of 12 men (including Jack Warden and Jack Klugman) must decide the fate of an 18-year-old boy accused of fatally stabbing his father. But only one juror (Henry Fonda) wants to take the time to coolly deliberate the case. Sidney Lumet (Network) made his directorial debut with this Oscar-nominated drama that illuminates all the petty impediments on the path to justice.

*Spoiler Alert* While not exactly spoiling, some of the opinions below deal with conversations deep into the jury's deliberations, and may effect the viewing of the earlier arguments.

Bryan

It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities- we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No Jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us.

This movie is phenomenal. So good, in fact, that the three people I viewed the movie with spent a half hour after the credits rolled discussing whether a movie like this could be successful today. While we disagreed on whether this format film would be picked up by cinemas, the underlying assumption throughout was that this was a quality film, and we would like more like it.

There are plenty of technical things that I enjoyed, like how changing the weather could change the feel of a set despite the actors never leaving the room. And the multitudes of sociological and psychological motifs you could draw upon are boundless. But I'll allow those kinds of musings to my colleagues.

What I think I enjoyed the most about this viewing was that I perceived the film rather patriotically. In a society where OJ Simpson can purchase justice, it was nice to see a film that illustrates how the system should work. I have a considerable personal interest in the law, and it is not common that the judicial branch of our government is singled out for patriotic theater. Later on we'll get to see the filibuster in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and and I've seen plenty of films showing a patriotic president struggling with his responsibilities. This is not surprising- in most places in the country, those two branches of government are the most directly democratic. People don't elect judges where I live (and don't in most places), and so the judicial branch is separated from the general public in a lot of ways. Getting into the Jury Room is a great exception to this, and this movie executed it very effectively.

It was not preaching from a soapbox. The same way that Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) was more effective by calmly laying out details, this film wasn't a Sousa march on the Forth of July, but left the viewer with faith in a system that usually only gets attention when it fails. By being subdued in this manner, it manages to not come off as propaganda, while effectively showing how the American judicial system is something to be proud of.

It also shows the system's flaw, which is the same flaw that plagues every attempt at governance: MAN. Some of the jurors are deeply flawed. Considering the movie was filmed in 1957 I'm impressed with how well they strove to show a cross section of society. A jury of our peers indeed. In order for any society composed of humans to work effectively, some of the darker aspects of humanity need to be overcome. I chose the quote above for a reason- it shows how the conversation that is supposed to occur in the jury room is framed in a way that is supposed to avoid prejudice, and revenge, and bitterness, and all the multitude of human emotions that can muddy the waters.

The statement on patriotism was even more impressive, considering the film's time period. We may argue that a movie with a single set and no action other than script may not be a movie that the film industry would embrace today, but looking back I'm impressed that a society that would have had black and white restrooms in the theater(and even black and white theaters) picked up such a treatise on equality. Impressive.

Final Thought- This absolutely belongs on a list of the greatest movies ever made, and belongs higher than 87.

Jason

This gentleman has been standing alone against us. Now he doesn't say that the boy is not guilty, he just isn't sure. Well it's not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others, so he gambled for support and I gave it to him. I respect his motives. The boy is probably guilty, but - eh, I want to hear more. Right now the vote is ten to two.

This movie should be seen by everyone. So if you have not seen it then you should stop reading this right now and go watch it. Don't worry I'll still be here when you get back.

OK, now that we've all seen it I can continue. This movie is one of my favorites. Its so simple yet so complex, and I think that it can be appreciated by almost anyone. Lets start with the first thing that makes this movie so good, the actors. All 12 of our "angry" men are spot on. Each one fills a niche and without that person the movie would feel like a puzzle missing it's final piece. I mean what can I say about Henry Fonda, he's perfect, but even people like Jack Klugman who had a smaller role were very convincing and gave the audience someone to identify with. No matter who you are you can pick one of the 12 and identify with them.

The setting in this movie is a room. Just one room. This room is like almost any other room it has a table some chairs and a few windows. Its actually kinda boring and plain. That is why its perfect. The moment they step in you realize that these men are going to be stuck in here until the verdict is reached. I don't know about you but if I get stuck in a room without some form of entertainment for more then an hour I get very antsy. Then you find out its the hottest day of the year and the fan doesn't work. With what seems lke lttle effort the director is able to take an already awful experience and make it so much worse. Few movies can pull off a single setting correctly. This movie did it, in my opinion, perfectly.

On a more personal note I should add that this movie is actually the reason I wanted to take on this task of watching the 100 greatest movies. Like me my father is a huge movie buff (which is probably why I am), and he made a real effort to show me some of his favorite movies of all times, many of which are on this list. One day when I was 10 he showed me 12 Angy Men and I loved it. Ever since that moment I realized that a movie didn't have to have big explosions and cool death scenes to be great. So when I saw that this movie was only 87 on the list I thought that there has to be at least one or two movies from this list that I haven't seen that are as good, if not better, then this one. So I guess in a round about way with out my dad I wouldn't be doing this blog, so thanks pops I appreciate it more then you know.

Final Thought- This movie is pretty close to perfect. It goes way above 87 for me. Its almost definately in my top 10

Angel

Listen to me. We're... This kid on trial here... his type, well, don't you know about them? There's a, there's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.

I don't really think that I have much more to say that has yet to be said by the two above me. We all gush about how good this film really is, and that is all true.

For me this film felt like the archetype and inspiration for tons and tons of films. Watching it for the first time, I was constantly being reminded of parts of other movies that felt like they were being taken from this film. It is a bit like watching the best bits of your favorite dramas.

For me the big thing is that this was the first real black and white movie that I had ever sat and watched the whole way through. It gave me an appreciation for the way some of the older movies were made. Seeing a movie that was almost totally shot in one place and only having the 10 jurors. It was so simple an idea, but it had a deepness and complexity that we have not seen today. It is very ballsy move to have such a small cast. Each of the jurors had to be different and dynamic enough to hold the viewers attention and drive the movie forward. I really feel that it is a movie that would not be created today because of the depth and complexity it held while still being a very minimalist film.

Final Thoughts- I really did enjoy watching this film. I enjoyed it just as much the second time around when I could pay more attention to the details as I already knew what was going to happen by the end. I am glad that it is on the list and should I make one of my own it will definitely be on that list.

Alfredo

I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin' - but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father

I liked this movie. That's kind of bland in comparison to what my cohorts had to say about the film but tat's probably because they liked it more than I did. Not that I thought this was an average run of the mill movie. As I said I liked it. Quite a bit even I just don't really think there's much else to say about the film that hasn't already been said. Although I must say I greatly agree with two things that were said by Jason and Bryan. One would be incredibly hard pressed to find a role, portrayed by these fine actors, you couldn't identify with and more importantly in a perfect world this is how every single case by every single group of jurors should be handled be it a purse snatching, murder or fraud

Final Thoughts- As I said I enjoyed this movie. I don't think I could go so far as to say it's one of my all time favorite movies but if I had to make a list of one hundred great movies. This would easily make my list maybe little lower on mine but only by a couple of points.

88 Bringing Up Baby

2010-04-12T13:14:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Love runs wild for a hapless scientist and an unstoppable heiress in Howard Hawks's classic screwball comedy that ranks high on the American Film Institute's list of the funniest Hollywood films ever made. With her eye on paleontologist David (Cary Grant), heiress Susan (Katharine Hepburn) lures him to her home. But the hilarity begins when Susan's dog steals David's prize dinosaur bone and her pet leopard, Baby, is mistaken for a zoo escapee.

Jason

Well, of course, do you think it would roll if it were square

This movie was really tough for me to pay attention to. Not to say that it was boring, it was just not really my type of funny. I'm not sure if it was the lack of a "straight man" or that some of the jokes were a little dated, or maybe its just that I don't like goofball comedies. Whatever it was, it made this movie really tough for me to just sit and watch.

Final Thought- This is my shortest review yet, probably because I don't have much to say about the movie. It obviously doesn't belong on my list, but I can see why other people might put it on theirs.

Alfredo

"He's three years old, gentle as a kitten, and likes dogs." I wonder whether Mark means that he eats dogs or is fond of them?

There were plenty of times during Bringing Up Baby that I laughed. Oddly enough though I was not a fan of this movie. It seemed more like an hour and a half long sit-com episode than a movie. Not to say that it was poorly done mind you, it just so happens that it wasn't my particular cup of tea.

Final Thoughts- Needless to say I don't think this belongs here. It's a goofy movie that's partly fun to watch, but at the end of the day really just not worth the time.

Bryan

"Now it isn't that I don't like you, Susan, because, after all, in moments of quiet, I'm strangely drawn toward you, but - well, there haven't been any quiet moments."

I'm sorry, but not top 100 material. There were moments of decent comedy, but the film as a whole does not stand up, even compared to other comedies of the time. I would argue that Cary Grant himself had a much better, and funnier, performance in Arsenic and Old Lace, 6 years later. I would put that performance on the list, and infact put it well ahed of the 80's. It's not that I am not a fan of the older comedies; it's just that this isn't a prime example. And quite simply, I expect prime examples to be the norm on a list of the greatest films ever. This doesn't measure up.

I did like the use of a leopard as an absurd plot device. That at least was original and different (although in 1938 there weren't quite as many movies, so being original was much easier). Katharine Hepburn portrayed her role well, but it wasn't the most interesting character as scripted. None of the actors were so bland as to be an handicap. Things just never pulled together in a way to make this something special.

Final Though - If you are bored and this is on the classic movie station one night, then by all means watch and enjoy. It is not a movie I would suggest striving to see. It is not one the 100 greatest American movies of all time; not by a long shot.

89 Sixth Sense

2010-04-06T17:29:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netfix)
When young Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment) inexplicably starts seeing dead people, he lands in the care of child psychologist Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis), who is determined to uncover the truth behind Cole's remarkable paranormal abilities. M. Night Shyamalan writes and directs this plot twist-filled chiller, which was nominated for six Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Olivia Williams and Toni Collette co-star.

Spoiler Alert

In order to correctly talk about this movie we are all going to spoil a MAJOR plot point in this movie. So if you've lived in a closet for the last 10 years and don't know how this movie ends then I would skip this review until you check it out.

Bryan

"I see dead people"

I know that my quote is stereotypical, but in a way that is the point. This movie had such an effect on the film industry, and society as a whole, that the line has almost become universal. When we heard the line delivered again in this viewing, it was almost taken comically. The line had been so often spoofed, that seeing it played straight for the first time in so long felt funny.

This, however, was the only aspect of the movie that was less effective upon the second viewing, which surprised me considerably. I remember liking this movie, but I never saw it again. So much attention has been paid to the twist ending, and I was so impressed with the ending, that I felt like viewing it already knowing where it was heading would be repetitive and boring. In fact, in my viewing of Sophie's Choice, I mentioned how this was one of my main perceptions of M. Night Shyamalan's movies. That perception needs to be reexamined.

Knowing where we would end up allowed me to see a very interesting story with new eyes. The attention to detail was impressive, and rather than reveling in a mystery and trying very hard to guess what would happen next, I was allowed to switch my focus to a story of a boy struggling with a serious challenge. Seeing Bruce Willis more as a supporting character- like a narrator accounting someone else's tale, was a very interesting way to watch things again, and that is how I found myself seeing things. Willis's character may have gotten a lot of screen time, but I saw his scenes as a way to illustrate what the child, Cole, was struggling with.
I enjoyed this, more than I expected to.

Final Thought: Before viewing this, I would have said that I liked the movie, but that it wouldn't go on my list- and that Shyalmalan had better films. Allowing myself to watch with new eyes has forced me to question that. I would need to watch some of his other movies again with similar scrutiny, but I would say I am now in the fence as to whether this would make the cut. If it does, it will be in the lower section of the list, about where it appears now. It may clock in just above the 100 mark and miss out. Either way it certainly deserves consideration.

Jason

They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.

This movie sucks...

That is what I would have written if I had written this before watching it again. This is the first movie that I have seen in a long time that I feel gained a lot, and I mean a lot in the second viewing. I used to hate this movie, probably because I felt it was always just a means to an end. What I mean by this is that M. Night came up with the idea of a movie where a guy is a ghost but doesn't know he's a ghost, and he then took this idea and just found the best way to get to that point. Though that's not at all what he did.

He found a way to put a dead man into almost every scene of the movie and have him "interact" with every character in the movie. Even though he should, according to the rules set by the movie, not be able to. I think the main contribution to pulling off this twist was the excellent acting by Willis's widow. When I first watched this I definitely over looked her, but without a spot on performance by her this movie would have lost something.

Final Thoughts- This movie is good, and I think it does a lot of really cool things. That being said it is not on my list. This movie changes every time you watch it. The first time, in my opinion, is mediocre at best. The second is enjoyable, but I feel like after that it becomes mediocre again. A kinda seeing behind the curtain effect. Lets be honest a movie that is on the 100 greatest movies list should be great the 1st time, the 2nd time and the 100th time and I just don't think this one would be.

Angel

Do you know why you're afraid when you're alone? I do. I do.

So for me watching this film was a bit of an interesting experience. I was the only one in the group who had not seen the entire film. As such it was a bit like watching it for the first and second time. Not to mention that "certain people" who reference parts of the film right before they actually occurred.

Getting that out of the way...

I think the way the film was shot was great. You can tell the effort that the movie makes went through to make sure that viewers felt like all of the dead were truly interacting with the real world while not breaking the rules that had been created for those who had passed. Knowing that Bruce Willis was dead from the start allowed me to appreciate the little details in how he was portrayed in the film.

Outside of the detail that went into the movie, I felt that the movie just felt a little flat. The ideas were great, the area getting cold, the color red, the dead not knowing that they were dead. Most of it worked great, like using red for when the dead interacted with the world. But it just did not add to what I thought was supposed to be a suspenseful movie. Maybe it was just me but I honestly did not find the film that scary.

Final Thoughts- Overall I think that this was a good film. The attention to the little things along with a script that is flawed but thought provoking make it something that people should see.

Alfredo

Yo no quiero morir!

I first saw this movie when it first came out on tape (man that was a long time ago). So I was fifteen at the oldest. It spooked me some (although little girls vomiting and talking at the same time has always frightened me) and I generally liked it. This was my first time seeing this movie since then. That having been said I think it speaks volumes about a film that I’ve seen only once, nearly a decade ago, and can still remember scenes and lines (sorry Angel).

The Sixth Sense was a decent movie when I first saw it and just really fun to watch the second time around. Because we all (at the very least) knew how the movie ended we spent probably about half the time just talking about what was going on, giving our opinions about the characters and their actions. Like Bladerunner before hand I think that really adds to a movie.

It’s funny because when I think of Bruce Willis, I like almost any other person think of a modern day cowboy (Yippie-kai-yay Mr. Falcon). He’s not the person I would have picked for this role had I been the casting director, but I’m really glad he was. He was phenomenal in this he didn’t just do a ghost version of John McClane (that’s right he’s D-E-D ded). Both Toni Collette and Olivia Williams were outstanding in their roles as well.

Final Thoughts – I think this movie did what it set out to do and it did it well. It may not be the best thriller out there but I think the ones that surpass it are already on this list anyway. Like any good thriller it makes you think and keeps you on edge. You get an added bonus if by now you some how don’t know the ending. I might put it a little lower on the list myself but I still think this movie has earned it’s spot on this list.

90 Swing Time

2010-04-03T12:31:00.000-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
Many claim that this is the best of the 10 Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movies, and Time Magazine named it one of its All-Time 100 Movies. In this classic musical, Astaire plays Lucky, a gambler who misses his wedding to a young socialite and must come up with $25,000 for another chance at her hand. He ends up meeting the lovely Penny, a dance instructor, and soon forgets about his old flame. Songs include "The Way You Look Tonight."

Jason

Listen. No one could teach you to dance in a million years. Take my advice and save your money!

This movie was more amusing then I had thought it was going to be. It did a really good job of being comedic while still showing off the impressive skill of both Astaire and Rogers. However, I should say that while I know their dancing is impressive I really didn't have much interest in it.

The only dance sequence that I found myself actually paying attention to is when Astaire performs Mr. Bojangals of Harlem. While the dancing was impressive, especially the seen where he dances with the shadows. What really got my attention was the fact that Fred Astaire was wearing black face. Let me repeat that, Fred Astaire is in black face. While he's not doing it to be offensive it is still something that we all found very funny and couldn't help but crack up at.

I also think I enjoyed this movie so much because of Pops. Pops was Fred Astaire's friend and for lack of a better term, sidekick. Everything he did was to get Lucky (Astaire) out of trouble. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't, but regardless of the outcome it was always hilarious.

Final Thought- Would this movie make my 100? No. Do I regret watching it? No. Would I recommend this to other people? Probably not. I mean don't get me wrong the movie was enjoyable, but I don't think its something people need to see, if its on TV and you have two hours to kill then by all means check it out, but if you don't watch it your not missing much.

Bryan

"Ace of Spades!"

This disappointed me. I know enough about the film industry to know that Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire are an iconic couple, so I had expectations for their on screen performance. Simply put, it was lacking. They were bland, and I can't say the chemistry between them was anything noteworthy. The reputation seems bloated to me.

The plot line was alright, but the characters reactions and emotions throughout were flat and unrealistic. I understand that it aimed to be an upbeat song and dance routine, but there was nothing to make me feel beholden to the characters. I enjoy upbeat movies where I can rejoice with the characters' triumphs, but these roles simply didn't feel human. The climax of the movie was as unbelievable as it was emotionally empty: Ginger Rogers laughingly switches grooms on her wedding night, and her spurned lover deals with the news by singing and failing to hold up his pants. Hilarious? I didn't feel it.

Final Thought: This doesn't make my list. They are impressive dancers, but I'm not going to put river dance on my list either. They simply don't do enough for me to consider them among the elite.

Angel

Lucky, please don't feel bad. You still got me. Course I ain't a young and pretty girl. I ain't even a girl, but I'll stick. I'll never leave you.

I don't really get it. By it I mean get what all the fuss is over this movie. It is not that the movie is horrible or anything but really? This movie is not all that amazing. To be honest, I can really only concentrate on one aspect of the film.

NO ONE GETS ANGRY!!!!!

I am not able to describe how annoying this fact really is. The movie starts with Fred Astaire being tricked by his performance group and showing up late to his own wedding effectively leaving his wife at the altar. Both she and her father seem angry enough before he shows up, but once he does and announces that he is off to make money its like a switch and they are one big happy family again.

The film continues with people getting annoyed and frustrated but never really angry. The worst offense is at the end of the film where Fred Astaire and his fiance agree to end their relationship, Astaire runs to get back Ginger Rogers who is about to marry the "antagonist". (i hate to call him that since he doesn't do much nor do he and Astaire really fight) Astaire pulls the same prank that was pulled on him at the start of the film. Rogers decides to go back to Astaire. Ricky Ricardo (not his actual name or look) sees everybody laughing about the joke, starts laughing himself and starts playing for their wedding.

I mean COME ON!!! Someone throw a chair or something. I just feel like the fact that no one ever got angry took away from the film. It felt like there was less emotional connection to the film.

Final Thoughts- I know that I just ranted about one aspect of the film, but to me it was the biggest distraction to film as a whole. Add to the fact that I was not really impressed by anything else in the film. Not having watched any of the other Astaire/Rogers films, I can not really say if it is the best or not but regardless I am not really sure as to why it is even on this list.

91 Sophie's Choice

2010-03-29T20:00:00.003-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Aspiring author Stingo (Peter MacNicol) shares a Brooklyn boarding house with winsome Polish émigré Sophie (Meryl Streep) and her mercurial lover, Nathan (Kevin Kline) -- a union unsettled by Nathan's violent behavior and Sophie's disturbing recollections of her wartime experience. Stingo uncovers the truth about Sophie, however, when her accounts of her stint at a Nazi concentration camp unravel, laying bare the real source of her torment.

Jason

Stingo, you look... you look very nice, you're wearing your cocksucker.

This movie was a roller coaster ride of emotions for me. Before we even started I was preparing myself for a very serious dramatic movie since I had a general idea of the plot and the choice that Sophie would eventually have to make, but then something happened. The movie started and this bright pink house came on the screen. Frado proceeded to comment on how pink the house was and one of the characters commented on how everyone notices how pink the house is. This made me chuckle and realize maybe there's something more to this movie then just her choice.

As the movie continued every scene would make me feel differently. Some scenes would make me laugh, like the one where my quote came from, while others would be very serious, like here choice. I was amazed at how well Meryl Streep was able to convince me she was a mentally damaged polish immigrant. I have never really been a fan of hers, but I totally get why she is praised so highly for this role. It was fantastic.

The other thing that made me enjoy this movie so much was the color. I'm sure Bryan and Alfredo are going to touch on this because we all commented on it through out the movie so I won't go into to to much detail, but the contrast between the bright vibrant "present" and the dull almost gray flashbacks gave a really interesting feel to those scenes.

Final Thought- Normally before I write these I have an idea of whether or not the movie makes my list, but I'm having trouble with this one. I mean don't get me wrong this movie is great, but its not really my type of movie. Though maybe that's how I know its great. If someone like me who usually gets board during this type of movie can be engrossed in its story then I think my answer is more obvious then I originally thought. This movie is going to be on my list though I would say not any higher then 75.

Bryan

On this bridge on which so many great Americans writers stood and reached out for words to give America its voice... looking toward the land that gave them Whitman... from its Eastern edge dreamt his country's future and gave it words... on this span of which Thomas Wolfe and Hart Crane wrote, we welcome Stingo into that pantheon of the Gods... whose words are all we know of immortality. To Stingo!

This movie experience is the reason I was excited about screening this list. I had never seen this movie before, and I have to say that it deserves it's phenomenal reputation. I was lacking in having never seen it, and I sincerely hope that the rest of the movies on the list that I haven't seen are anything close to this.

Before the movie even started I knew what Sophie's choice was. I'm not sure where I had heard this, but I approaced the movie hoping that I could enjoy the film even though I already understood the climax. I was afraid of an experience like knowing the end of an M. Night Shymalan movie. I was pleasantly surprised that my foreknowledge detracted nothing, and may have simply helped to focus me on what was important . The choice Sophie maked was revealed in the last few minutes of the film, but it was more of a culminating moment that a "gotcha!" plot twist. Seeing it coming didn't lessen it's impact, and the anticipation that built up to that moment was just as enveloping.

Meryl Streep was perfect. Simply perfect. The accent, the body language, the mannerisms, and the delivery were all beyond anything I'd ever seen. She more than carried the movie, she was the movie. Stingo may have had more lines because he was narrating, but I can't even imagine what this film would have been like if narrated by Sophie. Encountering her character through the perspective of another made her at least approachable; Meryl Streep trying to narrate a story from the perspective of Sophie would have been either less realistic and true to the character, or so convoluted as to be unintelligable. But Stingo is just the lens, Sophie is the portrait.

Jay touched on the use of color in the film, and I'd have to agree with him that it was artistic. It managed to be very conspicuous without being cumbersome, and it was impressive how the use of lighting and coloration could change the same set, the same room in a house, from an exuberant party to a mornful repose. It had the effect that many movies use the soundtrack for, like switching from a Sousa march to a melonchaly dirge.

The use of color was so effective and so conspicuous, it made me wonder if I was missing things that were more suble. How were camera angles used? How was it edited? I honestly can't say I noticed. Even trying to watch the film critically, looking for compliments and complaints, I was so swept by the tale that I could have easily missed these things.

I really can't find something negative to write about it. It's not a movie that leaves you upbeat and gay, but it shouldn't be. In fact, if this movie ended on a high note I would have been disappointed and complaining about it.

Final Thought - This belongs on the list without question. Saying where on the list, however, forces me to define how I'm ranking the movies. This isn't a movie I would watch often, nor is it one that I would add to my collection. But it would rank quite high on my list of films that everyone should see. I would absolutely put it in a time capsule of the greatest films ever in the hopes that future generations could have the chance to experience it, but if I could only take 100 movies with me into a bomb shelter, it wouldn't make the cut.

I guess my final thought on this one isn't quite final, but I'll say that 91 seems low; I would push it higher than it is. Once I've screened more of the films ahead of it, I'll try to nail down my approach better, and give a more specific answer.

Alfredo

I honestly don’t know what to write about Sophie’s Choice. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not because I thought it was a bad movie or anything of the sort. In fact I liked it more than I thought I was going to. I’m just not really sure what to say about it. I can say this this though I never understood the hype about Myrel Streep but I guess I can see now why people tend to think that she’s such a great actress.

I want to write SPOLIER ALERT for what I’m about to say here but I feel as though everyone already knows what her choice is regardless of if you’ve seen the film or not. Which I think was part of the problem I had watching the movie. Again, I liked it but at the same time I feel as though I would have invested more into it emotionally if I hadn’t already known that her choice involves which of her two kids gets to live and which dies. This movie is referenced in pop culture often enough that not knowing that is almost on par with not knowing Vader is Luke’s father or that the little creepy kid with mental problems can see dead people (see future post).

One thing I did dislike about the movie, or rather that I didn’t get was the build up. At times I felt that the scenes with the three leading members were not at all needed but again I think this just goes back to the fact that I knew Sophie had to choose to keep one of her kids and I was just impatiently waiting for that to happen.

Final Thought- All in all I think this was a good movie. It was well acted and just really well shot. I can’t really call foul because I already knew the plot, if anything else it’s a testament to this movie’s power. Regardless of that though I'm still having trouble ranking it. While I think this movie not only deserves to be on this list but even deserves to be knocked up a few pegs it's not a movie I would personally own. It's not something I'd make a person sit down and watch if they told me they never saw it. Hell, it's a movie I'd expect most people not to have seen. I mean why would you if you already knew how it ends?

92 Goodfellas

2010-03-22T18:24:00.001-04:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Joe Pesci and Robert De Niro chew plenty of scenery, but the focus of this gripping Martin Scorsese opus is real-world mobster Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), a gangster who dreamed of making it big but landed in the Witness Protection Program instead. Nominated for six Oscars (including Best Picture), the film's only win was Pesci's Best Supporting Actor statue for his scene-stealing portrayal of ticking time bomb Tommy DeVito.

Jason

Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.

I love this movie. I haven't seen it in about 5 years, but it was still as good as I remember. Though this time around I noticed a flaw that I either over looked last time or just didn't remember it being there before.

Now I would never call Joe Pesci or Robert De Niro in a Scorsese movie a problem, but I think they inadvertently effected the movie negatively for me. Am I saying that these two were bad, no, actually I'm saying the complete opposite. They are so good at being these characters that it makes everyone else look like crap. I mean even though Ray Liotta was the main character, any time Pesci and/or De Niro were on screen. I barely even noticed Henry Hill and the problems he was having.

I know the above doesn't actually count as a flaw but it was enough of a problem for me that it made me finally decide the age old question. Which is better Casino or Goodfellas, and I know not everyone agrees with me, but I think its Casino. I mean don't get me wrong I think both plots are great and they are both told in an interesting and engaging way. I really think the only reason I enjoy it more is because the story centers on De Niro and Pesci. So we get to engage with at least one of these two amazing actors 100% of the time, instead of like 60%.

Final Thought- I love this movie, so it definitely should go on my top 100. Though I'm not really sure where. Before I watched it the most recent time I would have said top 25, but after seeing it again it just didn't have the same charm that I remembered. Maybe it was me noticing Ray Liotta's terrible fake laugh or maybe I'm looking at it in a different way since I know I have to review it, but whatever it is I would put this movie no higher then 50. I should also note that if I felt like my list of 100 was getting to cluttered I would cut this and keep Casino since they are so similar.

Bryan

"You know, we always called each other good fellas. Like you said to, uh, somebody, 'You're gonna like this guy. He's all right. He's a good fella. He's one of us.' You understand? We were good fellas. Wiseguys. But Jimmy and I could never be made because we had Irish blood. It didn't even matter that my mother was Sicilian. To become a member of a crew you've got to be one hundred per cent Italian so they can trace all your relatives back to the old country. See, it's the highest honor they can give you. It means you belong to a family and crew. It means that nobody can fuck around with you. It also means you could fuck around with anybody just as long as they aren't also a member. It's like a license to steal. It's a license to do anything. As far as Jimmy was concerned with Tommy being made, it was like we were all being made. We would now have one of our own as a member.

This is a great movie. I'm glad it is on the list, and it would absolutely be on mine. While it has sufficient action and violence to be classified a solid guy movie, it was also emotionally jarring.

I particularly like that the narration shifted perspective based on who's point of view the scene was illustrating. The scene when Karen is yelling at Henry in front of the card shop and she picks up the narration from Henry for the first time, the transition is so fluid you hardly notice it. A device that could have been unwieldy and distracting was executed in such a way to make it natural, like breathing. Genius. And she fit perfectly into this film- the tone of the film was often trying to convey to a normal audience why someone would choose this life of crime, and her narration took that point home more effectively than much of Henry's account of the allure.

That being said, she came nowhere close to being the best character in the movie. Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito was iconic- any impersonation of the actor you will ever see will draw from this film. What do you mean I'm funny? Funny like a clown?

*Spoiler warning (But if you haven't seen this and can be spoiled, I'm disappointed in you)*

And DeNiro is great. He is introduced shooting a corpse in the gut that had already been stabbed to death, and yet his sobs at learning that Tommy (Pesci) had been executed were emotional and believable. The dichotomy of his complete disregard for human life and his strong regard for friendship was stunning. He became even more complex when it was revealed that he would willingly order the hit on Henry (Liotta), someone he'd been close friends with and watched grow up, in order to protect his own ass. I like the complexity, and can't imagine anyone other than DeNiro doing it so well.

Throughout these reviews I've always tried to rate the movie not just against all other films, but against others of the same genre. Comparing apples to apples, Goodfellas falls considerably short when compared to the Godfather. This doesn't disqualify it from my list, but certainly makes ranking the top 100 much easier.

Final Thought: Goodfellas belongs on the list. It certainly should be lifted up as a movie that everyone should have seen, but I would say that it's relative low placement on the list is appropriate. It is a phenomenal movie, but it is not top 10 material.

Angel

Attaboy! I got respect for this kid. He's got a lot of fucking balls. Good for you! Don't take no shit off nobody.

This movie is just plain fantastic. It is hard to put into words how enjoyable the film really is.

I think a big part of it is the perspective of the film. It is from the point of view of the main character who always wanted to be a mobster. Most of the time movies play out from the point of the good guy. Detectives trying their best to keep the scum of the world from being on the streets. Not Goodfellas, here we were able to see the other side of the coin. The ability to do what you want, where you want, when you want. To be in a group of people who only hung out within that group, and who had a freedom that people only could wish for.

That freedom was as much a punishment as it was a pleasure. Power corrupts and so does greed. Facts that Joe Pesci and Robert deNiro's characters embody. Thinking that they were untouchable Tommy(Pesci) stepped on one too many toes. Stick your nose where it shouldn't be and get a hole put in the back of your head. Pull off the heist of your life, become an old paranoid man who cuts strings....and throats. Life gets hard when you spend it looking behind you.

Final Thoughts- I really enjoyed this film. It almost gave you an honest view of what the life of a gangster actually was, both the good and the bad. Not counting for some overacting by Ray Liota the movie acted out perfectly. This definitely belongs at this list.

Alfredo

Jimmy was the kind of guy that rooted for bad guys in the movies.

It's funny what a few years can do as far as opinions are concerned. I can recall seeing bits and pieces of Goodfellas a few years back and from what I saw I was not in the last bit intersted. It seemed to me like The Godfather (which at the time I had not yet seen), another Italian-American cash cow Hollywood wanted to bank on. I'm happy to report that my taste in movies has significantly matured since I was in highschool.

I started the evening we wached Goodfellas exhausted from a long day at work. I'm telling you this because that evening I was just as if not more tired than the night we saw The French Connection and I was
looking forward to passing out. There was a slight problem though. From the moment Goodfellas began it grabbed hold of my attention and did not go until the end credits started scrolling.

The only way I can really describe this movie is to say that it's a recruit film for the mob. Right from the begining all the Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) talks about is how fantastic the mafia is. How he can get away with doing damn near anything to damn near everyone.

The movie starts with Henry at a young age looking out his window at a bunch of wise-guys in a social club. Those first few minutes of the movie set the entire tone of the movie for me. Watching everything that progressed after that point I felt like a young Henry, simply in awe at the extravagant lives these men lead. Like the characters in teh story I felt no remorse for the actions they took towards others. They all seemed to deserved it in one way or another. Especially Tommy Devito.

Even at the end of the film when Henry does the right thing and turns in all his comrades, for a full pardon, I was so drawn into the lifestyle of the characters that I hated him for ratting them all out.

Final Thought- Goodfellas is fantastically acted, it has an all star cast, and is written to the point where you yourself feel drawn into the story. I've liked most of the movies we've seen up to this point. This is the first one though that has actually immersed in it's world and got me lost in it's story. I don't see how this movie couldn't make it onto this list.

93 The Fench Connection

2010-03-09T20:57:00.012-05:00

Brief Synopsis (From Netflix)
Violent, foul-mouthed detective "Popeye" Doyle (Gene Hackman) pursues a suave French drug dealer (Fernando Rey) through New York City with Captain Ahab-like zeal. Featuring a legendary car-vs.-train chase scene that stands the test of time, the film won the Best Picture Oscar. William Friedkin's groundbreaking crime drama that portrays cops and thugs in a similar light took the genre down a gritty, realistic path that influenced filmmaking for years.

Jason

Blast off: one-eight-oh. Two hundred: Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Two ten: U.S. Government certified. Two twenty: lunar trajectory, junk of the month club, sirloin steak. Two thirty: Grade A poison. Absolute dynamite. Eighty-nine percent pure junk. Best I've ever seen. If the rest is like this, you'll be dealing on this load for two years.

This movie leaves me with a lot of mix feelings. Last night right after watching it I hated this movie and had already decided that it has no business of being in the top 100, but I don't actually think it was the movies fault. I've had some time to think it over and realize there were two factors that really caused me to dislike this flick.

The first being partially my own fault and partially the fault of others. What happened was a confusion of what exactly this movie was about. I had been told by several people this movie had one of the coolest car chase scenes ever and because of this constant association of car chases and French Connection I made the mistake of confusing this movie with Bullitt, which for those who don't know, is a movie that was like 15 minutes of plot and an hour and a half of bad-ass car chase. Now you might be wondering why this is a problem, well if you sit down to watch an awesome action flick and you end up with a slow moving crime drama its very hard to get out of that "I wanna see shit blow up" mind set and the slow moving drama seems much slower then it actually is.

The other problem that I had with this movie is that it is sandwiched on the top 100 list between Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas, two incredible movies. So I had assumed that this one was also incredible. Unfortunately it was not, and not only was it not incredible it was very slow moving. It wasn't until an hour into the movie that the plot was explained. Before that all they did was show a whole bunch of characters that interacted with each other, but I had no clue who was important to the story and who was there to make the important characters look good.

Final Thought- This movie was not terrible. It did a lot of really cool things. The most important being blurring the line between good guy and bad guy, but the movie had to many flaws for me to put in my top 100. I don't regret watching it but I don't think I would ever do it again.

Bryan

"You pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?!?"

The movement of this movie annoyed me. The first forty minutes of police work made me feel like I was the one on stakeout all night. The character building was interesting, and the acting was very good, but those aspects could have easily been slipped into a plot line where something was going on.
If I were to describe the plot the movie, I really would have very little to say about anything before the quote Jason used above. From the point on- from the testing of the drug to the climax- the movie was actually plot driven.

I liked the main characters, and the story had promise, but most of the movie was about them tailing some low-level hoods, getting next to nothing for it. I liked the scenes where they busted up the bar and made "milkshakes" out of the illicit drugs they confiscated, but I would have enjoyed it more if it actually accomplished something in their investigation.

I liked how the villain was suave and cunning, while Popeye was gruff and course. He hardly reacted when he learned that he had gunned down a Fed with friendly fire. It made me wonder what his reaction would have been if it had been Cloudy that he shot, since he almost did just that a few moments earlier. Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider played well off each other.

Final Thought- I vote no, it does not belong in the top 100. It does some interesting things, but there are much more interesting crime dramas. I find it odd that this would make the list, but The Untouchables would miss out.

Angel

"Hey you! Haircut! Where are you goin'? "

So were are going to get our little caveat out of the way. As mentioned above, we were slightly misinformed about the plot of the film and what it was really all about. As we were expecting a high octane, thrilling, car film. We were instead given a slow paced methodical, story driven, crime drama. And that is not at all a bad thing.

The French Connection does one thing very well. It shows a lot of the "grinding" that goes into real day to day detective work. Every inch of information that is learned about the crime takes hours upon hours of being out in the dark, digging in the trash. It is a different take on the genre. Typically the view will know about the amount of work that went into the investigation. Here you experience it with the characters of the film.

The other thing that I really enjoyed was the fact that the main criminal was supremely intelligent. He was not a mad scientist, or a psychopath, or anything of the sort. He was just a guy whose job it was to deal drugs in high quantity, and he happened to be very good at it. He was not a bad guy, he was the big drug dealer which made him THE bad guy.

Final Thoughts- To be honest for the kind of film it was, it was not really all that bad. Was i disappointed? Yes. Everything that I enjoyed about the film is also what made it slow and void of action. It was a deep, intricate film about how good people do bad things, in order to get a good result. But in the end it spent more time creating this feeling of an epic clash and less time actually showing it.

Alfredo

I passed out while watching this movie so I'll be opting out for this review.

94 Pulp Fiction

2010-02-26T00:39:00.000-05:00

Brief Synopsis (From Netflix)
A burger-loving hit man (John Travolta), his philosophical partner (Samuel L. Jackson), a drug-addled gangster's moll (Uma Thurman) and a washed-up boxer (Bruce Willis) converge in this sprawling, comedic crime caper fueled by director and co-writer Quentin Tarantino's whip-smart dialogue. Their adventures unfurl in three stories that ingeniously trip back and forth in time, resulting in one of the most audacious and imitated films of the 1990s.

Jason

Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin' his wife's feet, and stickin' your tongue in her Holiest of Holies, ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport. Look, foot massages don't mean shit.

Its been about ten years since I last saw this movie and for some reason I had this idea that Reservoir Dogs was a better a movie. Now don't get me wrong, Reservoir Dogs is really good, but it pales in comparison to Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction has it all humor, violence and Sam Fucking Jackson.

I think my favorite part of this movie is also why it can be frustrating for some people. I really like the fact that each seen is almost like its own short film. I mean if you piece the 6 or 8 scenes together they make a bad ass flick, but even if you watch them individually without the other scenes they are still really great. This to me is so good because I feel like there are no throw away scenes. What I mean is it makes me feel like no scene is more important then another, some are more enjoyable for me personally, but they all use amazing dialogue and acting to make you really understand the intertwining lives of a couple of gangsters, a washed up boxer, a mob boss and his wife.

Final Thought- This movie makes very few mistakes. In fact it might be to good. It makes Tarantino's other movies look like there just trying to reproduce what this movie seemed to accomplish so easily. Hopefully one day he will be able to make another movie as good as this one which some people, myself included, would call his masterpiece. I think we all can tell that I think this movie absolutely deserves to be on this list. In fact it is so good it should probably be higher on the list. I would say at least 50 maybe even higher.

Alfredo

I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue, you were saying something about best intentions. What's the matter? Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort. What does Marsellus Wallace look like?

I could sit here all day doing nothing but replaying that scene over and over again. That's how fantastic it is. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Pulp Fiction is by far Tarentino's best work. It's the movie whose acclaim he's tried to reproduce time and time again and although he's come close once or twice he can't quite hit it. Which really isn't much of a surprise. I mean this movie has it all. An all-star cast, a compelling if not at times disturbing story, bullets and a guy in a gimp suit and really what more could you ask of a movie?

Tarentino does a lot if things right but my favorite thing by far is the soundtracks he picks for his movies. Everything from Reservoir Dog's use of Steelers Wheels' Stuck in the Middle With You to Kill Bill's use of Twisted Nerve by Bernard Herrmann. He has a fantastic way of making some really great music bring back detailed thoughts of men having their ears ripped off and women ODing on really high quality German shit.

Final thoughts- I'll say it again, this is Tarentino's best movie. Every great director should have at least one movie on this list and if he can have only one then this one would have to be it. Although I feel as though it's too low on the list.

Bryan

"Well, I'm a mushroom-cloud-layin' motherfucker, motherfucker! Every time my fingers touch brain, I'm Superfly T.N.T., I'm the Guns of the Navarone! IN FACT, WHAT THE FUCK AM I DOIN' IN THE BACK? YOU'RE THE MOTHERFUCKER WHO SHOULD BE ON BRAIN DETAIL! We're fuckin' switchin'! I'm washin' the windows, and you're pickin' up this n*****'s skull!"

Awesome movie. This cast is full of some of the most talented actors of it's day, and I consider their performances here as among their best. The role of Jules is how I will always think of Samuel L. Jackson. It's telling that without discussing it with anyone, the 2 posters before me both chose lines from Jackson as well to start their post.
And it isn't because his character just lucked out in the script. All of the dialogue is top notch. Equal weight is given to character building and plot development, which is quite a task considering how large an ensemble it is, and how complex the story is. But both work wonderfully, and play off each other. It is rare in a movie for everything to click, and Pulp Fiction pulls it off.
I am surprised this movie is only 94 on the list. It is head and shoulders above everything we've screened so far. I'd absolutely move it further up.
For most of the reviews we've written so far, I've found myself having to list the good aspects of the movie to even out my review, so that I wasn't simply trashing it. I now find myself having trouble doing the opposite. I am glorifying this movie, but struggling to find things that detract from my experience. The fact that I can't easily list any shortcomings speaks volumes.
The one note I would add about this movie is that it is best viewed multiple times. Our viewing was overwhelmingly positive in part because we've all seen it before. Had any of us been watching for the first time, the lack of chronological progression and unorthodox storytelling technique can be confusing. The movie is so self referential that the tiny minutia, which we were enjoying because we knew what was coming, is only really appreciated on a second look. If I remember correctly, my first time was not as awesome as this viewing was.
So this movie is an "unrealistic motherfucker. Motherfuckers who thought their ass would age like wine." It just gets better and better. (Sorry, the dialogue is so well written I couldn't contain myself to one quote).

Final Thought - This absolutely belongs on the list, and I would strenuously argue that it deserves better than spot 94. In my mind it isn't a film that just managed to make the list, but has solidly won it's place.

Angel

"When I bring an OD dying bitch into your house, I'll stab her with the big fucking needle"

Ideally my cohorts and I would bring something a little different every couple of days, showcasing the differences in out tastes in film. We should in fact feel more or less a little bit differently about all the films. This is most definitely NOT one of those films!!!

I loved this film. Words can not describe the amount of guiltless enjoyment that I had while watching this movie. To be honest, if I really think about it, I have no idea what the film is really about. That does not matter though, it does not have to make sense. The plot of the story is not what shines in the film.

The best part of the film are the characters. The casting is absolutely fabulous. Choosing any other actors to portray these characters and the film would fall flat. Especially Sam Jackson. His delivery and lines make the entire film In fact, if you sat down and thought of the most bad ass lines Samuel L. Jackson could say, then thought of a list of almost-as-awesome lines, AND THEN linked all those lines together in an almost coherent story you would have Pulp Fiction.

Final Thoughts- I have been waiting for a film that absolutely knocks me off my feet. This is one of them. There are tons of line from the film that we all love. We are constantly using the lines with one and another. It is a film that stayed with me the first time that I saw, it and it will stay with me in the future. This is the first film that belongs on this list.

95 The Last Picture Show

2010-02-22T17:50:00.002-05:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
There's not much to do in the windswept Texas hamlet of Anarene, where the town's only cinema is about to close forever. So high schoolers Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Duane (Jeff Bridges) lust after incorrigible flirt Jacy Farrow (Cybill Shepherd) while trying to chart their uncertain futures. When Duane heads for Korea after joining the service and Jacy gets shipped off to college, Sonny is left behind in a veritable ghost town.

Jason

Thank God, I'm glad I weren't on fire - I would've burned to death before you got one button undone.

This movie was not at all like I expected. The first thing that I noticed was its complete lack of plot. Don't let the synopsis above fool you. Nothing really happened in this movie. This doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie, just not a movie I could watch more then once.

I was trying to think of a movies that this compares to and the first one that comes to mind is Porky's, but that movie just has some similarities in its plot. A less obvious comparison that I realized is actually more relevant is From Dusk Till Dawn. You might be saying how does that make any sense. Well I know that Mexico and gangsters have nothing to do with sex and Texas, but they both use the same plot device. Half way through these two movies they completely change genres. I won't give away the twist for From Dusk Till Dawn, but in The Last Picture Show is goes from a teen sex comedy to a serious drama. Unlike in From Dusk Till Dawn where I loved the change, I thought this one didn't not help the movie at all, maybe even ruining the parts that I did like.

Final Thoughts- The first half of this movie is definitely enjoyable. We were all laughing and having a good time while watching what was a pretty good sex comedy. Then the main characters went to Mexico and the movie lost all of the humor that made it charming and a good time. This change killed its momentum and made the movie seem to drag on and on and on. I think if this movie picked a genre and stuck with it it would have been a better movie, maybe even top 100 worthy, but as it stands now it does not belong.

Alfredo

Nothin's really been right since Sam the Lion died.

First thing's first. SPOILER ALERT! I am going to spoil a few parts of this movie because that synopsis up top is ridiculous.

The very first line, "There's not much to do in the windswept hamlet of Anarene" is an understatement. Apparently if you're a teenager and male there's nothing to do but go to the pool hall and try to get laid and if you're a woman there's nothing to do but try to get laid by a more eligible person than the last. Calling Jacey an incorrigible flirt seems wrong. Town bicycle seems more appropriate. Finally, the bit about Duane going to Korea, Jacey to college and the local cinema closing soon? Yeah none of these actually happen UNTIL THE LAST FIFTEEN MINUTES OF THE MOVIE!

Sorry, that previous paragraph had nothing to really do with my review. I actually really liked the movie. It just seemed off to me. I actually really like coming of age movies and this one seems like the quintessential coming of age movie. I saw a bit of Breakfast Club in this, not to mention SLC Punk and even a little bit of Porky's. Yes I'm aware that these movies all have pretty much the same damn plot just with different characters but still I like them.

Like most movies in it's genre this movie is essentially without a plot and about nothing. We follow the main character Sonny through a year in the life of his town. A town where nothing really exciting happens except for the occasional naked pool party or roll in the hay with Frau Blücher and still it manages to get exciting at times.

It takes place during the 50's so the decision to film the movie in black and white opposed to color made the movie feel worn. It also gives the town a duller and more pathetic feel to it. There were times when I really just wanted the movie to end, not because I was tired of the film but because I wanted to escape the damn village.

The one real complaint I have with the movie is that is that the supporting character of Genevieve (Mrs. Peacock) was one of the more interesting characters but sadly didn't get much screen time.

Final Thoughts - I can understand the appeal that this movie could have for people and I did like it myself. Again I like the whole angsty teen drama genre but I could think of several better movies in the genre to replace this movie. They may not be as all-encompassing as this film was, but they're certainly more interesting and entertaining.

Angel

*squeak* *squeak* *squeak*

Do you know in TV when there is supposed to be this really awkward moment, you hear crickets in the background. Well that pretty much describes the entirety of the film. One big awkward moment.

Which is really funny to say because for the majority of the film, i would have to say that I really enjoyed the film. At the start of the film there were boobs, lots and lots of boobs. Which is great because I, like most other men, love boobs. But other than that and the main character sleeping with his coaches wife, and the grandfather character dying, not much happened.

I keep repeating that nothing happened, partly because it is true and partly because I have to say that for a film where nothing is happening, it is shot remarkably well. It was never boring or lame, it just kinda was.

The film did great at giving the viewer plenty of time to reminisce about their own youth and how it was similar or how it varied. It always took note of what a teenagers point of view truly was.

Final Thoughts-
I could go on and on about how nothing happened it the film, but the truth of the matter is that something did happen. Life happened. It was done in a way that never really made the film look like a film. It was like watching a year in the life of a teenager. I think it was done wonderfully for it being such a plain film. I still feel like there would have been better choices for this catagory and still can not wait to see what is next.

Bryan

"If she was here I'd probably be just as crazy now as I was then in about 5 minutes. Ain't that ridiculous?... Naw, it ain't really. 'Cause being crazy about a woman like her is always the right thing to do. Being an old decrepit bag of bones, that's what's ridiculous. Gettin' old."

Meh

This was a decent movie. I was entertained through much of it. But I simply don't see anything here that has the potential to knock my socks off. The movie was disappointing, because I expect a certain special quality in a movie for it to be touted as a top 100 contender, even this low on the list. But there was simply nothing here that left a lasting impression.

It was suggested during our discussion that this movie may be on the list because it was groundbreaking- that it set the stage for sex-driven coming of age movies for years to come. I don't know enough about the film industry to know if this is true. But even if it is, I come back to the assertion I made during Toy Story: simply being first doesn't make it the best. And the best is what belongs on the list.

I don't want to say the movie doesn't have redeeming points. Some of the acting was great- Eileen Brennan as the waitress in the diner grabbed all my attention every time she was on screen, which was all the more impressive because her role as scripted was short and rather meaningless. Cloris Leachman (forever Frau Blucher in my mind) was effective as a melancholy coach's wife who cheats with the main character, only to be spurned for a younger woman. And Cybill Shepherd was phenomenal, considering this was her first role in Hollywood. She managed to make the character both enticing and loathsome, and I found myself being both attracted to her and disgusted by her. That wasn't an easy role to portray, and being able to do so was crucial to the film.

The choice to film in black in white was interesting and effective. The skinny dipping scene was given an interesting perspective, combining the youthful exuberance with the aged impression that monochrome lends. It was different, and enjoyable.

This wasn't a garbage film, but simply does not live up to the quality I demand for a movie to make the list. It's worth noting that while contemplating this movie, my review of Yankee Doodle Dandy came to mind. If there's a film on this list that may slip under my radar and still have the kind of "magic" that Dandy did, this would be it. The movie simply didn't speak to me, but I wonder whether the fact that it didn't speak to me personally was getting in the way. I'm not a Midwestern or Southern small town boy (none of us are, we though tumbleweed rolling across the set was hilarious, which ruined our emotional lead in to a death scene). And movies that inspire melancholy angst are not my cup of tea. But was I missing out on a great experience because I didn't share the background?

Final Thoughts- No. In the end it came down to the fact that I simply would not suggest this movie to anyone else. Perhaps the movie may be inspiring to those that share it's context, but a truly powerful movie pulls all of audiences in, finding its power in its ability to communicate things that would be hard to otherwise. This movie falls short, and there are much more effective examples.

96 Do the Right Thing

2010-02-12T14:29:00.005-05:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
What begins as an uproarious comedy evolves into a provocative, disquieting drama as director Spike Lee chronicles trivial events that bring festering racial tensions to the surface on a sweltering day in a largely black Brooklyn neighborhood. After a number of minor misunderstandings -- and an effort to boycott the local pizza parlor -- a young man lies dead, the pizzeria lies in ashes, and the racial schism is wider than ever.

Jason

Dago, wop, guinea, garlic-breath, pizza-slingin', spaghetti-bendin', Vic Damone, Perry Como, Luciano Pavarotti, Sole Mio, nonsingin' motherfucker.

Awful...

If I wrote this review right after watching the movie last night that is all I would have written and I would be very happy with that review, but now that I have had a chance to think about I feel like I need to expand on that a little. From what I can tell this movie did only one thing really well, and I don't think any other movie has ever done it to me before. It made me feel like a racist.

I always had this idea that Spike Lee's movies were about making changes to the stereotypes that have plagued blacked people for years, but this movie did the opposite. It showed all the different types of stereotypes and why people hate them so much. Honestly this movie just made me feel really uncomfortable

Final Thought- This movie is bad, and honestly I cannot fathom why anyone would put it anywhere near the top 100 greatest movies. I know I don't like some of the movies that are on this list, but at least I can understand why they are there. This one just doesn't make sense. If you haven't seen it don't waste your time and if you have, I'm sorry.

Bryan

"I detest this place like a sickness"

I detest this movie like a sickness. This is the first movie I would have changed the channel on.

Final Thought- NO

PS: Did this review feel unfulfilling and lacking in any real quality substance? Good. Then you know how I felt trying to watch this.

Alfredo

My people, my people, what can I say, say what I can. I saw it but didn't believe it, I didn't believe what I saw. Are we gonna live together, together are we gonna live?

Unlike my friends here I'm not going bash this movie but that's mainly because I won't be talking about the hour and a half long build up to the climax that was nothing more than a flash fire.Unfortunately that doesn't leave me with much more to say. There were maybe a handful of interesting characters and there was also some really interesting cinematography that at times that would liven the movie up. I would have liked to have seen more of it, but sadly it was lacking.

Final thoughts- This wasn't a bad movie, the problem is it also wasn't a good movie, especially when compared to Spike Lee's other films. While I didn't really detest the movie I don't understand why it is that it made it onto this list and I certainly don't think it belongs here.

Angel

I would like to post something a little different than what was posted by my other comrades, but i won't

The movie (i am not apt to call this a film) just didn't send any other emotion other than annoyance, boredom, and indifference.

The characters were just stereotypical black people. They did not have a sense of depth or personality to them. Personally I found them to be plain and bland. The only emotion that I had about the characters was that they sucked.

To be terribly honest there was a time (the riot scene mostly) where I almost felt racist against the characters in the film. That was not a cool feeling to have, and if that was the point of the film than it accomplished it with flying colors.

Final Thoughts- While this isn't the worst film in the world (it is up there though). It does most definitely does not belong on this list. A film about the daily life of an African American or even a film of social commentary about the racism and audacity of African Americans would have been fine. At the very least though it should have been well done, at minimum, it should have created some sort of emotion. All this film did was leave a nasty taste in my mouth.

97 Blade Runner

2010-02-09T18:24:00.026-05:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

In a smog-choked dystopian Los Angeles, blade runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is called out of retirement to snuff a quartet of escaped "replicants" -- androids consigned to slave labor on remote planets -- seeking to extend their short life spans. This version includes the theatrical cut and director Ridley Scott's cut, which comes with a different ending and the omission of Ford's narration, giving the film a different tone.

Alfredo

It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?

Blade Runner is the type of film that you have to sit down, watch and engross yourself in. I know this from experience. The first time I saw Blade Runner I didn't really care much for it. It seemed like a typical run of the mill Sci-Fi movie. A genre which at the time I didn't particularly care much for.

I saw it again not to long ago though, (prior to viewing it for this blog) and my thoughts about it changed significantly. I never really cared much for thought provoking movies when I was younger. I just wanted to sit down and have fun watching a movie. Film noir, which this movie very much is, was not my cup of tea. That was years ago though.

I think the biggest selling point this movie had, for myself anyway, was it's ability to inspire conversation. Throughout the length of the movie and for some time after it was over the four of us were constantly commenting on what was occurring. We weren't riffing on it mind you but rather asking questions about life and society. It's not often that a film comes a long that can spark debate about the differences of being a human and being human.

Final thoughts- Without even going into how spectacular the backdrops for this movie were or how well little details were written into the screenplay to make this dystopian world all the more believable. Ridley Scott does not disappoint with this fantastic film. Although this film is not for everyone, the science fiction geek in me proudly stands firm as I claim that this movie deserves it's spot on this list.

Bryan

It's not an easy thing to meet your maker... Can the maker repair what he makes?

Blade Runner is the first thought provoking movie on the list. It is a dystopian view of earth, a morality play that draws the viewer into a philosophical discussion. The Tyrell Company’s slogan is “more human than human,” but how do you define human? How could our society be drawn into such a dirty, gritty, uncomfortable vision of the future? Is it immoral to hunt down and kill with impunity Replicants that were made in a factory a just last year? Is humanity defined most by the matter we are composed of, or by the emotions that drive us? Are dolls that can march around and welcome you home creepy? It fires the imagination.

Needless to say this film will not enjoy universal appeal. Complexity of this type requires an active participation, and a willingness to both pay attention and ponder. This is not escapism, not a movie that is mindless enjoyment after a long day.

The pacing of this movie was extremely slow, which contrasts it considerably from most movies on the market. The problem is that even this pacing, distinguishably Noir, still left me at times feeling that I had missed things. The sweeping views of the city were so rich that I felt like I missed interesting parts; in fact I know for sure I did because while we were watching people were noticing and pointing out things I hadn’t. The dialogue didn’t repeat itself, and the thought-provoking details illuminating the setting were giving equal emphasis as the plot-driving clues. Unless Decker (Harrison Ford) reiterated a point in his gumshoe voiceover, it was easy to miss some of the details that make the movie robust. (And while I liked the voiceover at the onset, by the end of the film I can see why Ridley Scott’s directors cut approached the movie without it.)

Watching this movie, I found myself again trying to decide what criteria to apply to judge the top 100. Does a movie need to be universally appealing to be on the list? If I vote for it to be included, am I suggesting that this is a movie that you will probably like? Or is it suggesting that it is a movie that is worth seeing, even if I don’t think it will be your cup of tea? Is intellectual stimulation adequately compelling? Is having a good time the only purpose of theatre?

Just considering this movie’s position feels like an academic exercise. It is the hardest call I’ve made yet. It certainly deserves a nomination. I have a sneaking suspicion that there are thought provoking science fiction films that are quick paced and action packed, and also have this kind of complexity, but racking my brain I can’t think of any. I can name multitudes of novels that accomplish this brilliantly, but stories that bring this wondrous mix to the silver screen are rare.

Final Thoughts - I will vote yes, this belongs on the list, but it belongs about where it is. It brings a flavor that is different and novel, and the list should reveal that not all of the best movies are blockbusters. It is classic science fiction, not the “fantasy in space” that films like Star Wars have made popular. There is value to that genre, but cerebral science fiction themes can be significant in a wholly different way. There is great potential here, but I feel like Blade Runner is not the epitome of its field. I look forward to either discovering a movie out there that would supplant it from its position, or for a new movie to come out and steal the spotlight. Until then I vote to keep Blade Runner notable, so that people have the opportunity to expand their horizons, even if many do not avail themselves of it.

Jason

I need ya, Decks. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic.

While watching blade runner last night I thought writing about it was going to be easy, but I've been sitting at my computer for a 1/2 hour and have erased ten different introductions. Last night I was so sure that I was going to rip this movie apart for all the things that I don't like about it, but as I sit here I can't really think of any. What I mean is that I have always said for a movie to be truly good it has to invoke an emotion, and this movie didn't do that. However, it was able to spark some very deep conversations between the four of us while we were watching the movie and those conversations lead to some very strong emotions. So does this mean I'm wrong is this movie better then I thought. Unfortunately, no, the movie just isn't that good.

Now that I have decided that I feel a little more comfortable picking it apart, and the best place to start, and what I consider to be the most obvious flaw, is the plot. It was full of holes. The biggest hole being the world the story takes place in. I have a lot of trouble comprehending how the human race got to the point they were at. They created these "robots" called replicants which are completely indistinguishable from humans except if a trained professional sits them down in a room and uses a fancy device after 20 or 30 questions he can figure out whether or not they are a human, yet they have none of the rights a human has, and it is illegal for them to be on earth. Honestly this is stupid, and this ridiculousness really turned me off from the movie.

This was not the only thing that went wrong in this movie. The pace of the movie was very very slow. It was trying to do this whole film noir thing. It tried to do this cheesy voice over and had Harrison Ford and his love interest dress in what could only be defined as futuristic 1950's noir.

Final Thought- Unsurprisingly I do not want this movie on the top 100 list. I mean I get why some people might enjoy this movie, but I just didn't like it. Creating some interesting conversation can make a bad movie watchable, but it does not make one part of the 100 greatest

Angel

This film was cool though to be honest I spent more time talking about what the film was trying to do rather than actually watching it.

The film is about Harrison Ford a now retired "Blade Runner", which is a guy who chases these robots that look exactly like humans. Why they ended up like this is not entirely described in the film. But he is one of the best at what he does, and he is in need. The robots have evolved to a point where they can feel emotion (former versions did not feel emotions and that was how they were able to tell them apart.)

The film was very dramatically shot and the director very obviously tried to make every scene look as epic as possible. Though Harrison Ford kept having these inner monologues during every scene where people where not already talking. It made it quite annoying because Harrison Ford had this voice that just never really made sense. It was like he was trying to hard to sound like an old grizzled cop and never fit.

The best thing the film did was strike up conversations. The conversation went all over the place from the reasons they were made to look like humans to begin with, to how they were able learn emotion. We were constantly asking questions that would elicit reactions from everyone else. This was the first film where we all had slightly different feelings about what the film was trying to do.

Final Thoughts: I know it does not really sound like it but I actually enjoyed the film quite a bit. The questions and thoughts that this film brought up gave the film more depth and complexity. Though I still do not believe that it should be on the list.

98 Yankee Doodle Dandy

2010-02-02T18:10:00.027-05:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

James Cagney won the Best Actor Oscar for his lively portrayal of "Mr. Broadway," George M. Cohan, in this lavish screen biography that highlights Cagney in some of his finest song-and-dance routines. Cohan, a playwright, entertainer, composer and patriot, made his mark on the vaudeville stage and penned countless memorable tunes, including "Over There," "It's a Grand Old Flag," "Give My Regards to Broadway" and the film's rousing title number.

Bryan

“What's the matter, old timer? Don't you remember this song?”

I was happily surprised by Yankee Doodle Dandy. I wrote in my last post, about Toy Story, about how our culture tends to be shallow, and easily forgets where aspects of our culture come from. This was a great example of how I am guilty of the same.

I had never heard of George M. Cohan going into the film. The scene where the pain in the neck kids bother George and have never heard of them rang true with me. His songs are part of American society. “She’s a Grand Old Flag,” “Over There,” and “Yankee Doodle Dandy” are tunes that permeate patriotic events, and I was the young kid who had no idea where they came from.

I can find plenty of faults with the movie, but as I tried to write this review I was reminded of a musical theory class I took. The teacher went through the technical approaches of musical composition that catch an audience, how to establish expectations and then defy them in a pleasing manner, more things than I can remember. He would then play an awesome selection from Beethoven that broke every rule that he had just delineated. His explanation was that some music was simply magical. At the time his explanation simply seemed to reinforce my opinion that he was crazy, and yet I remember that lesson more than any of the methodological instruction.

I like Yankee Doodle Dandy, but I can’t place my finger on exactly what resonated with me. I started writing complaints about many things- the lack of a problem meant a climax wasn’t particularly distinguishable from the rest of the movie, the songs sometimes went longer than I wanted without adding too much to the plot, the emotions seemed too overly upbeat and happy to be real. But none of these really detracted from my enjoyment. I’m glad this was on the list.

The fact that AFI didn’t provide reasoning for their list bothered me, and was part of why we are embarking upon this project. And yet only 3 movies in I find myself struggling, because my opinion seems to be “It’s just good, but I don’t know why.” Hopefully everyone else has more concrete thoughts.

Final Thoughts–This belongs on the list. Its magical appeal and cultural impact guarantee it gets a spot. My inability to rant and rave over its wonderful facets means it belongs low on the list, so the position 98 seems appropriate.

Jason

We'll be o-ver, we're com-ing o-ver, and we won't come back 'til it's o-ver O-ver There!

As I hit play and the title credits started rolling for Yankee Doodle Dandy I said "this is going to be the first movie on the list that I am not going to enjoy". I assumed this was a musical based on some of the things that I had read at various websites, and I am not a fan of musicals. There are a select few that I enjoy very much, but most others I just can't get into. Fortunately for me this movie was not a musical like I had originally thought. It was a film that had some song and dance numbers, but they were not there to move the story along. All they did was show off how talented James Cagney was at dancing and the brilliance of George M Cohan's music.

This movie is a prime example of why I wanted to do this project in the first place. If someone told me I had to check out this movie about the guy who wrote Yankee Doodle Dandy, I probably would have laughed in there face, and missed out on a movie that can only be described as magical.

Like Bryan said its frustrating that AFI doesn't include a reason why they decided to put a movie on the list, but after watching this I get it. There is no reason why this is a great movie. Its just is.

Final Thought- This movie is great. I enjoyed 99% of it. The only flaw it had was that it didn't have much of a climax. It basically plateaued an hour in, which for me didn't really take anything away it just made me keep expecting some horrible thing to happen as it approached the ending. I actually think this movie should be higher up the list. I've seen about half of the 100 and it is much better then at least half of those so if I had to pick a place for it I would say this movie should be at least 75.

Alfredo

My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, my sister thanks you, and I thank you.

Yankee Doodle Dandy was a surprise for me. Again I had no real expectations of being wooed by the film and again I fell flat on my face.

Yankee Doodle Dandy is the story of George M. Cohan as portrayed by Hollywood. During World War II. So let’s be clear here. It’s a propaganda film. As event’s occurred during the film and the film’s climax became apparent we kept expecting as one would some kind of fall for the film’s protagonist of endure. It never came. It just sort of plateaued. And would easily have become my feel good movie of the decade. You know, had I lived through the second World War.

Despite it’s lack of “proper” structure, the movie was actually rather entertaining. Granted I don’t know if that’s because of it’s dated humor or what. But I can honestly say we all had fun watching this film.

Final thought: That’s twice now I’ve seen a movie on this list that I didn’t think I was going to like and that’s twice now that I’ve been wrong. And we’re only three movies into this list. I like where this is going. I’m fairly certain we’ve all come to the same conclusion with this film. It’s great. The movie is fun, and it’s great and it deserves to be on this list. The only problem is I can’t fucking tell you why. You’ll just have to see it and be as mesmerized as we were.

Angel

Whenever we get too high-hat and too sophisticated for flag-waving, some thug nation decides we're a push-over all ready to be blackjacked.

Let us start with the fact that for the most part I do not really care for black and white movies. For some reason the older I know a film is, the less interest I have in actually getting around to watching it. Regardless of whether or not it is actually a great movie or not. This is one of those films that, had it not been for our little project here, I would have missed out on.

The story of one person ride from anonymity to fame, and everything in between. The portrayal of George Cohan (the protagonist), made him seem like such a brat. The film very early on made me feel a sense of annoyance with George. His early rise created an ego and a sense of worth that never left the character.

As he grew and learned how his family had sacrificed their success just to keep him in the family that sense of ego he had seemed to work in his favor. The understanding that he was the one holding his family back tempered him. The fact that I once so very much disliked about the character became his saving grace. He became famous and brought his family with him.

It seemed that no matter what play Cohan made it became a hit. Each play also played off of a love for the country. There were flags waving everywhere, because of the time period it fit and felt real. The fact that the film was so incredibly patriotic made the film MORE believable instead of less.

Final Thoughts: This film was a complete surprise to me. The deep sense of patriotism and love for the USA in concert with a person rise through hard work determination and a touch of luck made this a film that I truly enjoyed. I can not wait to see more of these films because I want to see how those films stand up to this one. I might just vote to move this one up the list.

99 Toy Story

2010-01-31T12:12:00.036-05:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
Cowboy-toy Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks) feels threatened when overblown space ranger Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) arrives with a suitcase full of bells and whistles. But both dolls are lost when the family moves -- and finding their way home is only half the adventure. Director John Lasseter won a special Academy Award for this groundbreaking, computer-animated film that also earned Oscar nods for its music and screenplay.

Jason

Mrs. Potato Head, Mrs. Potato Head, Mrs. Potato Head... hey, I can dream, can't I?

We watched Toy Story last night and it was the first time that I have seen it or it's sequel in about 10 years, and like I remember it was awesome. Disney/Pixar has been able to do something over and over again and it amazes me every time. It can create a film that is both funny and enjoyable for kids, but is also just as funny and maybe even more enjoyable for adults.

I was going to write that all the characters are great, but I don't think that really does it justice. The main characters, Woody and Buzz, were voiced perfectly by two people whom I am a big fan, but I think they are only a small piece of the pie that makes this movie so good. The characters like Mr. Potato Head (my favorite), Rex and Hamm, to name a few, are hilarious. A support cast can make or break a movie and in this case, for me, they make it a smash hit.

I don't think you can talk about Toy Story with out talking about what it was able to do for the movie industry. This being the first full length computer animated movie it paved the way for lots of great films. Think about it, with out this movie there would be no Shrek, no Wall-E and no Incredibles.

Final Thoughts- Do I believe this movie should be in the top 100, well since I've been praising this movie for the last few paragraphs some people might believe that I do, unfortunately I do not. When the original AFI list was made in 1997 this movie definitely should have been on the list, but so many computer animated movies have come out since, and they have not only been able to replicate what Toy Story did so well, but were actually able to do it better. Don't get me wrong Toy Story is a great movie, just not one of the 100 greatest.

Bryan

You’ve Got a Friend in Me!

Toy Story is a solid movie. This is the first movie (of a surprisingly small number) that all four of us had seen before. But Toy Story isn’t just a film we’ve seen, it is one that permeated the culture we grew up in. I could quote “To Infinity, and BEYOND!” and people just about anywhere across America would know exactly what I am talking about. In fact, I remember my younger brother yelling that as he jumped off the couch, pretending to be Buzz the way I pretended to be Superman.

Part of what we are trying to do in this blog is to find what metric should be used to judge top movies; what components of a movie are necessary to earn a spot on the top list. What should we look for when comparing 2 movies that are vying for a spot? (I almost used the word rubric, and decided I’d rather shoot myself)
My point is I think that the cultural importance of a movie should be an aspect that needs to be considered. Any movie that actually shapes the culture is powerful. The fact that this movie was so readily accepted into the American lexicon speaks very well of it. We tend to live in a post-modern world where people will quote things without havng any idea where they come from. People say “Go ahead, make my day,” and have never seen a Dirty Harry movie, or say “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse” and have never seen the Godfather. I think this is a shame, and contributes to our shallowness as a society.

It has been mentioned that one of the reasons that Toy Story appears on the list is that it changed the movie industry. By being the first full-length computer animated feature, it was a bellwether of what was to come.
I am not sure I agree that this should be enough to nudge Toy Story onto the list. Disney has movies that are much better, and Jay has already commented that the field of computer animated films has examples that would trump this. I don’t think that simply being the first of its kind earns it a spot on the list; especially if the second or third or forth of its kind trumps it. There is no quota- I’m not going to set a number of animated films that belong on the list and just fill them in, because that is too simplistic. But when considering a movie, its quality in its genre should be looked at before comparing it with all other movies. Toy Story simply does not top any of my lists- not because of any failing in Toy Story, but because of the strength of its competitors.

Final Thoughts- I like Toy Story quite a bit, but I don’t think it quite makes it onto the top 100. It may be bumped up if, as we screen the rest of the 98 films there are some real stinkers that need to be dropped and some room is made. However, Toy Story doesn’t get to cut in front of better animated films that deserve a spot more than it does.

Angel

To Infinity and Beyond!!!

Toy Story, the first full feature CGI film ever, and in my opinion probably the best way to kick a genre off that millions of people world will come to love.

The story of a group of toys led by Sheriff Woody voiced by Tom Hanks, and newcomer Buzz Lightyear voiced by Tim Allen, and the hijinks that occur between the birthday of a young boy Andy and his family’s move to a new home.

I enjoyed pretty much every aspect of the film. The fist time that I saw this film it was close to if not more than ten years ago, but when the credits played there was sense of nostalgia and there was a slight smile of remembrance

The animation of the film still holds up even though it was created in 1992. The voice acting, progression of the film, even the damn jokes work perfectly in the film. My favorite part of the film was the fact that while it is most defiantly a kids movie there were nods and jokes that only parents would get. In fact there was one point where Woody was trapped in a crate with a Binford toolbox on top. (Binford was the name of the company that Tim Allen worked for in his popular TV show “Home Improvement” for those not smart enough to watch the show) These nods and references to the then contemporary, now past, shows let my childhood flourish, while I was still able to enjoy the more adult jokes that were laced in.

Final Thought-While I very much enjoyed the film, I don’t really think that it should be in the top 100 films of all time.It may have been well done and the first film to be completely in CGI, but fun and innovation does not make it one of the best ever.I feel it is due a lot of credit for being a “first of its kind”.But unfortunately it is enough to give Toy Story a free pass to being one of the greats.

Alfredo

The word I'm searching for I can't say because there's pre-school toys present.

It’s been nearly a decade since I last saw Toy Story and it was ~~just as~~ more entertaining than I remembered it. This movie is Pixar’s baby. The first full length feature film to be done entirely in CGI. I can’t say I’m writing this without a biased opinion. As far as Disney films go this is one of my favorites.

I think the biggest selling point with this movie is the fact that I can sit down with my ten year old cousin and we can both watch this film and laugh. Largely for different reasons of course but regardless we’re both entertained. That’s just something Disney’s always been able to accomplish.

The night we saw this film we saw it with a couple of other people and I honestly think it’s the first time all of us have been in a room and laughed at a movie at the same time for the same reason.

Final thoughts: The CGI in this film is fantastic and there’s no way anyone could argue that it didn’t change the medium. That alone though shouldn’t be enough of a reason to warrant it a place on this list. It’s not the CGI, however, that makes everyone laugh. It’s not the CGI that enables me, even after not having seen the film in ten years, to recite nearly every one liner. The movie is just… I’ll say it. Funtastic! It deserves its spot on the list.

100 Ben-Hur

2010-01-27T15:45:00.021-05:00

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)

Charlton Heston plays Judah Ben-Hur, a proud Jew who runs afoul of ambitious boyhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd) in this 1959 epic that boasts an unforgettable chariot race and earned 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Heston) and Best Director (William Wyler). Condemned to life as a slave, Judah swears vengeance against Messala and escapes, later crossing paths with a gentle prophet named Jesus.

Jason

Your eyes are full of hate, forty-one. That's good. Hate keeps a man alive. It gives him strength.

I just finished watching Ben-Hur and I'm having a lot of mixed feelings. I mean don’t get me wrong the movie was good but it definately had its flaws. I should probably start off by saying that before I watched this movie I had pretty much no idea what it was about, but from what little I did know I thought I wasn’t going to like it. I don’t enjoy Braveheart or Gladiator and I thought this movie was in that same style just taking place in a different time period. Boy was I wrong.

This movie did a lot of things right, and I think the most obvious one for me was Charlton Heston. He was superb. He brought a lot of life and emotion to the character that not many actors could, and because of this I was brought into the story almost immediately. The sets/locations, music and costumes were also done very well. They all helped me continue my emersion into the story.

That being said there were definitely some things I didn’t like about the movie. The first one might be my own fault but the fact that the movie comes on two discs and has an intermission hurt my viewing a little. We ended up watching the two parts on different days and the first half was very good and when it was over I was very much looking forward to the second part, but the second half was lackluster at best. Some of you might think that that’s my own fault for taking a movie meant to be watched in one sitting and watching it over a couple of days. It could ruin the flow or whatever. I think in this case it doesn’t matter. Even if I had watched the movie in two parts it would still have a bad ending. This leads right into my final point.

The story had a lot of flaws. If I watched a movie and it was just the story of Judah Ben-Hur that movie would be awesome, and probably about an hour shorter then this one, but that’s not what I watched. What I watched was a movie about not only Ben-Hur but also about Jesus. Before I go any further I should explain something. I am Jewish, but by title only. I lean towards the scientific side of the religion vs science argument. What I’m basically saying while the story of Jesus is interesting, I have no real emotion stake in it. In the first half of the movie the references to Jesus are small, even a little amusing, but the second half totally changes that. The last half hour of the movie is Jesus being put on the cross, and the affect it has on people. It really just didn’t do it for me.

Final Thought-Ben-Hur is a good film and deserves to be on the list of the 100 greatest movies, though it has its problems so it probably doesn’t deserve to be much higher then it is now.

Bryan

We Shall Celebrate Among the Dust: Ben-Hur Part 1

I decided that Ben-Hur offered an interesting opportunity. Because of its length, we decided to separate viewings at the Intermission. By leaving time between acts like this, I have a chance to share my opinions and perspectives half way through the movie, and can respond to my expectations in a second post at the end of the movie. So, without further ado, this is part one!

I’ll start by noting that the three of this seemed to approach Ben-Hur differently than when we had screened movies together in the past. Not only were our expectations different (get to that in a sec) but we seemed to approach the movie the way we would approach a painting in the MET, not how we’d approach a new television pilot. Such is the power of the AFI Top 100 list; we chose this movie because it is touted as the 100th greatest movie ever. We didn’t actually expect to love it, but we expected there to be something of quality that could be admired, even if the movie as a whole wasn't be escapist and purely enjoyable. For the record, Ben-Hur defied my expectations.

I was amused by how the three of us latched onto different aspects of the film. I (with my history degree) found myself musing over the ramifications of being adopted by a Roman Consul and trying to remember what the position of tribunal was in the roman bureaucracy. Meanwhile, Jason was talking about hamsters as plot devices (?) and Frado was commenting like a geezer about how much he misses movies in Technicolor. Jason’s intro describing us as geeks is well deserved.

As to our expectations, the length of the movie really was disconcerting. A six minute musical interlude followed by a montage of Christ’s birth that had little to do with the plot did nothing to assuage those concerns. But once the title credits aired, the pace of the movie was surprisingly fluid. There was enough time spent to develop characters, intermixed with enough plot moving action that I did not find myself bored. The costume and plumage was magnificent, and really was an addition rather than being a distraction (I’m looking at you, 300!) I found the first segment of the movie cathartic- I was falling asleep before they splashed the title across the screen, and was interested and engaged when I reached the intermission script.

As I mentioned before I have a degree in history- at one point in the movie I found myself trying to figure out how accurate historically the setting was. I decided that that really doesn’t matter, because the setting managed to be both emotionally charged and idyllic at times. Whether this portrayal of Jerusalem, Rome, and such was accurate is not as important, in this genre, as it is to be effective. If the producers had managed to pull a Bill and Ted and actually pull Jesus from his time to make a cameo, it probably would not have played as well on screen as the iconic image that was used, which is universally recognizable. The movie does not pretend to be a documentary, and needn’t be held to the standards of one. But I do hope Romans dressed like that. Stylish!

I will wait to pass judgment as a whole until I’ve seen the conclusion, but I’ll take this rare chance to describe my expectations for a movie midway. I went into the first section expecting very little, and now I am looking forward to quite a bit. I am hoping that all of the scenes that seemed to be establishing the setting and mood of the movie have a payoff towards the end. For example, I am hoping for:

A kick-ass chariot race
A chance for Ben-Hur to show off his wicked spear skills
Count of Monte Cristo- like revenge
Some way to resolve the leprous mother and sister situation
Continued pacing that keeps me interested

Finally, I hope they avoid being overly preachy. I have been impressed with how well they can work the holy land as a setting, especially set at the time when Jesus was a young preacher. People of faith have lots to grab onto that makes them feel like they know a bit about the period, while those who are not coming to the movie with a strong Judeo-Christian background are not hit in the face with overt messages, nor left in the dust because they don’t know biblical history. I am impressed with the line they have walked so far. And with that I’m off to watch the second half!

I Will Not See Him Half a Man!

Ben-Hur Part 2

I am glad that I took the opportunity to blog each half of Ben-Hur separately. I managed to put down the expectations that were raised before the intermission, so that I can quantify the degree to which the movie failed to follow through on that lofty potential.

Let’s take a look at the points I was looking for specifically:

A kick-ass chariot race- Check! I was happy with the start of the act when it opened up with the Arab Bedouin taking odds on the race. The race itself was exciting- perhaps a little longer than it needed to be, but with the amount of time spend leading up to it I won’t grudge them a few laps to revel in it.
A chance for Ben-Hur to show off his wicked spear skills: Nope. Not the biggest loss, but I’m mildly disappointed
Count of Monte Cristo- like revenge: Not really, but (Spoiler) Messala’s death scene and Judas standing over him in triumph was effective, without forcing Judas to blemish his character with morally dubious approaches. Kinda wish he speared him though
Some way to resolve the leprous family situation: Check! Maybe not how I would have approached it, but a happy ending nonetheless.
Continued pacing to keep me interested: I’m sorry to say that this simply did not come about. The biggest problem was that the movie tried to pull off 2 climaxes, and this simply wasn’t sustainable. After the chariot race and Messala’s death, the movie set about to lead into a second climax rather than resolve and settle from the first.

The choice to add Jesus’ Crucifixion as a secondary climax is what did in the second half of the movie for me. The entire first half of the movie was not geared toward this as a conclusion, and I even commented at the half how I liked the subtle way they approached the proximity of Jesus. Because of this, quite a bit of setup needed to be viewed before the movie could cut to the crucifixion and have it seem as anything more than a tacky add-on. This ruined the pacing of the movie, and transitioned the entire tone of the storytelling.

I wouldn’t have a problem with them wanting to end with Jesus’ death, but the movie did not establish it as an effective outcome. Religious overtones in a film can be very effective, but not as an extra level added upon an already lengthy movie. Had the movie drawn to a conclusion a half hour earlier- perhaps with Ben-Hur’s family being healed by Jesus as he headed to the garden to be arrested, the movie would have ended leaving you wanting to see more, and would not have dragged along. The conclusion that was chosen hurt the quality of what preceded it.

Thus my question becomes: how much do you penalize a movie for a lackluster finish? Is a movie that is awesome for almost 2 hours but leaves a bad taste in your mouth better than a movie that is mostly mediocre, but has an amazing finale that leaves audiences amazed?

Final Thought - In the end I’ll agree with my compatriots: This movie is top 100 material, but belongs in the lower 100. This was 100 and just barely made the list: If this is really the worst movie on the list, we are in for quite a treat. I doubt that all the movies on the list will stand up to this, however.

Alfredo

A grown man knows the world he lives in. For the moment, that world is Rome.

What to say about Ben-Hur? Let me start with this. When Jason first brought the idea of watching these one hundred movies we all jumped right on board. We were excited and really looking forward to it. That is until we started looking at the list of movies and how long they were. There at the top of that list at 212 minutes long was Ben-Hur almost instantly trepidation hit us all.

Come movie night, Bryan, Jason and myself started almost instantly riffing on the movie (a la Mystery Science Theatre). The six minute long overture did not at all help ease our fears of a long drawn out movie.
However once the overture and first scene were over I was captivated. The second major scene of the movie involves an entire Roman legion walking from Rome to Judea. Literally hundreds of extras filled the screen. The use of real people and what could easily be considered “cheesy” special effects was probably what captivated me the most about this movie. We come from a time in which CGI rules with an iron fist. Had this movie come out today every person except for those in the foreground would have been computer animated. The interior of the galley in which Judah is a rower would have been all green screened as would have been the opposing ship the rammed through the ships hull.

The movie came in two disks because again, it’s nearly four hours long. I couldn’t find a single bad thing to say about the first two acts if I tried. The sets and costumes were superb the acting, especially Charlton Heston’s astounding. The mix of drama and action were mixed superbly. The end of second act even left me wanting more.

Sadly the third act was fairly lack luster. The movie begins with the birth of Jesus Christ and throughout the entire movie we hear references to him. There’s even a scene in which a giant of a man offers Judah a drink of water as he’s being dragged through a desert by centurions. Not once is His name actually said. I really liked the way they alluded to him. Making Judah’s story a smaller part of what was Jesus’ story. This was ruined for me however when the final half hour of the film suddenly shifted from that to the crucifixion.
Although Judah’s story does come to an end it seems to take a back seat to what’s going around him. Mind you, this isn’t me going against the religious messages that were in the movie. My problem is the fact that the story moved from being about one man to being about an event. I don’t know about my other constituents but I was actually rather confused by this sudden shift.

Regardless of my personal distaste for how the movie ended I was over all very thrilled to have seen this. Having never seen it I hope this will play as an excellent example for the other movies on this list of yet to have seen.

I understand now why Ben-Hur was placed on this list. I also can see why, when compared to some of the other movies on this list it was placed at number one hundred. The conclusion of this post, like the ending of the movie, was lackluster.

Angel
(Did not Watch)