78 Modern Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.