#25 To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)

Based on the Harper Lee’s book of the same name, the film takes place in Alabama during the Great Depression.  Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck), a widowed father and lawyer, is approached by the judge early in the film to take on the case of Tom Robinson (Brock Peters).  Robinson, a black man, is accused of raping a white woman.  The first half of the film focuses mainly on Finch’s two children, Jem (Phillip Alford) and Scout (Mary Badham).  The second half focuses more on the trial and racial issues.  One of the town’s residents, “Boo” Radley (Robert Duvall), is a recluse who the children are both afraid of and fascinated by.  In the end, he plays a key role in the plot and in relation to the title of the film.

Incredible.  I am in awe.  Gregory Peck is amazing as Finch.  I do not remember the book well, but after reading the plot summary I can say the film did the book justice.  Finch can be described as an honest, hard-working man and father who does not seem to have an evil bone in his body.  The scene that captured him well for me was when Bob Ewell (James Anderson) spits in Finch’s face and he pulls out a handkerchief to wipe it off.  It reminds me of the story in the bible where if a man slaps you, you are to turn the cheek and let him slap your other sider versus seeking revenge.  And Peck does an amazing job at portraying Finch’s characteristics.

Set during the early 1930’s and filmed in the early 1960’s, the film had a modern feel to it.  And by modern, I mean today’s day and age.  The actors who played the children, as well as Peck, reminded me of people in the 2000’s.  I am expressing this in relation to a film like ‘The Apartment’ or ‘Midnight Cowboy’ where I sensed the difference in decades and felt it altered my perceptions of the film watching it over 40 years later.  I also believe it had to do with the way it was filmed.  The picture was extremely clear, though I can not remember if it was in color or not, and there was just something different about how it came across on the screen.  Due to my lack of cinematography expertise, I can not pin point what that something was, but it was there.

It is odd that a film with black servants and men freely carrying shot guns around made me feel like I was watching a current movie, but the themes will forever remain relevant. Racism, tolerance, single-parenting, justice, and love stuck out for me.  However, none of the themes was too overbearing.  In ‘Do The Right Thing’ racism is the main theme and blatantly identified throughout the film.  In ‘To Kill a Mockingbird,’ racism is the main theme, but it is offset by the tolerance displayed in several characters.  And I thought the trial of Robinson capitalized most of the movie’s time, however it ends up being a half hour at most.  Various other story lines and scenes make up the rest of the film, all filled with themes and morals of their own.

And to get back to Peck, he deserved his Oscar without a reason of a doubt.  I would not be surprised if the other nominated actors received zero votes in comparison to him.  I do not even want to waste words on his performance because anything I say could not possibly express his brilliance.  From the moment he took the screen, I knew exactly what kind of man Finch was.  Peck stepped into character and never left it.  I would love to know what he did to prepare for this role.  And the child actors, Alford and Badham, lit up the screen.  They were the innocence and love needed to even out the film’s serious topics.  And both were incredible at staying in character and making the audience believe they were really brother and sister.  Child actors always amaze me.

I highly recommend this film.  The plot moves along, the children keep it interesting, and many things occur that I did not expect to happen.  This film also began the career of Robert Duvall.  His role in small in terms of screen time and lines, but it is interesting to see him 40-plus years younger.  I thought I would need to be in a special mind frame to watch this, like take myself back 15 years as if I was watching this film in grade school.  I was wrong.  If you want to forget you’re watching actors, get wrapped up in a trial, and frolic in the innocence of young children, ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ is the perfect choice for you.

#77 All The President’s Men (1976)

Based on the non-fiction book written by Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, this film takes viewers through their entire investigation of Watergate, beginning with the 1972 Watergate break-in and ending with Nixon’s inauguration.  It chronicles all of the events from the reporter’s perspective; the interviews they conducted, Woodward’s meetings with his infamous secret source “Deep Throat”, and the struggles they faced with finding hard facts and maintaining their journalistic integrity.

I walked away from this film ready to take action in my life.  The spirit of Bernstein (played by Dustin Hoffman) and Woodward (played by Robert Redford) inspired me.  Movies do that to me sometimes.  This was the first one from the AFI List, which makes sense since I am a writer and journalism major.  Their passion for the story, displayed so brilliantly by Hoffman and Redford, and the fast-paced momentum of the investigation throughout the film touched me deeply.  I forgot I was watching actors a few times.

I enjoy learning about history through films.  I am always skeptical when movies are “based on” true stories because if they are “loosely based on” then that leaves plenty of room for fictional scenes, characters, and interpretations.  Redford bought the film rights to the book directly from Woodward and Bernstein.  Director Alan Pakula and Redford shot down the first draft of the screenplay, written by William Goldman, citing it as “…way off beat” and all three ended up spending hours writing it together.  Hoffman and Redford also spent hours visiting the Washington Post offices to research their roles.  The one obvious difference between the book and the film is that the film only covers the first seven months of Watergate up to Nixon’s inauguration, while the book goes all the way to his resignation.

The hours Redford and Hoffman put into learning what working for a newspaper meant is quite evident.  The hustle and flow of a newsroom, editors breathing down their neck, the rush to meet deadline, the need for hardcore evidence especially when dealing with such sensitive information.  I could feel it gushing from the screen via their acting talent.  And their chemistry together was phenomenal.  In the beginning, they do not interact with one another, then the audience is able to watch their relationship evolve until they are practically finishing each other’s sentences in the end.  I am shocked neither won an Academy Award.  Jason Robards won an award for his portrayal of Ben Bradlee, executive editor at the Post, and though I have nothing negative to say about his acting, I am not sure what made it Oscar-worthy.  Nor do I remember him saying much, but I guess the Academy saw something in his portrayal that I did not.

I do not know much about politics, nor do I really care to educate myself on such matters.  I mention that because if anyone who is reading this feels the same way, this film does not focus on political issues so much as the journalism and investigative reporting Woodward and Bernstein had to do.  I had a hard time following all the political names mentioned and different political organizations involved, but it all came together at the end.  And though I have a personal investment in this film being a journalism major, you do not need to have such an involvement in order to appreciate this film.  The reporters hard work, integrity, and relentless investigating will awe anyone in a professional field.

The first film on the list to evoke emotion from me and the first film where I forgot I was watching actors.  Nominated for Best Picture, it definitely had the makings to be the best for 1976 and all those involved spent enough time on the film to ensure that.  However, when you are going up against films like “Rocky” and “Taxi Driver,” both of which are ranked higher on the AFI List, the chances for winning decrease. Goldman took home the Best Screenplay Oscar, which to me means that the film is a factual adaptation of the events versus a loosely based “true” story.  This film represents an important piece of US history, both politically and journalistically, that is more fun to learn about using Hoffman and Redford rather than an old high school history book published by Prentice Hall.

#62 American Graffiti (1973)

A coming of age film that follows the lives of four high school graduates in 1962 on their final night before leaving for college.  Curt Henderson (Richard Dreyfus) spends the night hunting for a hot blonde girl in a Thunderbird and debating whether or not to leave for college the next day.  His best friend, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard), tells his girlfriend (Cindy Williams) they should see other people while he is away at college to strengthen their relationship and they spend the night going back and forth over it.  John Milner (Paul Le Mat), the bad boy, tries to pick up a girl and ends up driving around all night with Carol (Mackenzie Phillips), the 13-year-old sister of one of the girl’s he tried to pick up.  And Terry “The Toad” Fields (Charles Martin Smith),  the nerd of the group, has a wild night after picking up a blonde girl whose main goal is to get some “brew”.

It is impossible for me to watch this film without thinking of “Dazed and Confused” the entire time.  “Dazed and Confused” is another coming of age movie made in 1993, but set in 1976.  It follows the lives high school seniors during their last day and night of high school.  The similarities between the two are endless: intertwining plot lines, male leading characters, cars, rock and roll, sex, beer, high school graduates, etc.  I have to assume the idea for “Dazed and Confused” came from George Lucas’ “American Graffiti.”

I find it hard not to enjoy films that focus on the lives of teenagers.  I was a teenager not so long ago and I can always identify with the characters and relate to their struggles.  I am reminded of my high school days in a nostalgic way and the beauty of film is that I get to sit back and watch others experience the traumas versus having to go through them again myself.  It also gives me an idea of life for teens in the 1960’s, just as “Dazed and Confused” does for the late 1970’s or what all the John Hughes movies do for the 1980’s.  We need these films in a historical sense to show the evolution of teenage life.  It is interesting to see how much has changed, but what is more interesting is how much has not.  The naivety in Bolander and his girlfriend breaking up to “strengthen their relationship”, the machismo amongst the men and their cars, and the defiance of society’s ideals and inner struggle to find meaning in one’s life.  The times change, but the themes stay the same.

I don’t have anything critical to say about this film.  It is another comedy-drama; light-hearted, yet serious topics at times.  The ending threw me off a bit, but I understand it a little more after reading that this film was based loosely on Lucas’s teen life growing up in Modesto, California.  As usual with the films on this list, the acting was believable and full of talent.  I loved Harrison Ford as the chevy-driving, badass cowboy and Le Mat with his white t-shirt and cigarette pack rolled into his sleeve.  Howard obviously shined playing a teenage boy because it led to his role as Richie Cunningham, a high school boy, in the TV show “Happy Days”. Though Dreyfus looked older than the 18-year-old role he was playing, he played the role well and cracked me up a few times.  And Phillips was great as the annoying teenybopper.  It made me think of my younger sister always wanting to hang with the older kids, yet being so young and naive all at the same time.

I strongly recommend this film, especially if you have seen and enjoyed “Dazed and Confused”, John Hughes films, or really any film focused on the life and times of teenagers during a certain time period.  There are dilemmas throughout the film, but none made me feel anxious as dilemmas sometimes do.  The soundtrack is amazing, especially since I grew up listening to Oldies 104.3 thanks to my parents.  And I just love the intertwining plot lines.  It is like a puzzle to me – the four characters are together in the beginning, break apart in the middle, and come together again at the end.  The puzzle is solved and I am left satisfied.  I am shocked I had not seen this one much earlier in life, but like the expression goes, “better late than never.”

#80 The Apartment (1960)

Working in a low-end position at an insurance company, C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) lends his apartment out to the company’s top executives for their extramarital affairs.  They promise to write complimentary reports on him so he can advance in his position.  When his boss, J.D. Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray) reads the reports, he promotes him but only under the condition that he can use the apartment as well.  Baxter eagerly accepts, but later discovers Sheldrake’s mistress is the same woman he has a crush on, Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine).  Kubelik is the elevator girl at the building they all work and stays with Sheldrake under the impression that he will soon leave his wife.  Baxter endures inner struggles throughout the film as he debates the moral issues at hand and his personal involvement in the affair.

I found this movie in the ‘comedy’ section of my local library, and I must say this was unlike any comedy I have seen.  I did not laugh out loud once, the characters never sputtered out funny or quirky lines, and the story line was heavy from the beginning.  It opens with Baxter coming home to find that his “guest” stayed past the time he should have, meaning one of the men he lent the apartment to was still up there with his mistress.  I did not know having affairs was so public in the 1960’s.  I would still have thought religion and the commandments (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife) ruled most people’s lives.  Then about half way through the film, there is a suicide attempt.  It reminded me of Chaplin’s ‘City Lights’ with the heavy themes, yet comical backdrop and categorization.  Both imdb.com and wikipedia.com call it a “comedy-drama,” which I feel is fair to say.

That being said, I loved it from the beginning.  I rented three films yesterday and this was the one I was least looking forward to.  I knew within the first ten minutes I would enjoy it.  Lemmon and MacLaine are just so lovable.  MacLaine seems like she was cast as the “cute” girl in her time.  Not beautiful, like Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn, but the cute, lovable best friend.  And since Lemmon is surrounded by cheating husbands in this film, he shines as the “nice” guy who always gets stepped over and used.  MacMurray plays a great boss and cheating husband.  With his size, he towered over both of them and the arrogance he gave his character had me praying Kubelik wouldn’t end up with him in the end.  It was also fun to see Lemmon and MacLaine young.  I have only watched their later films, so to see them in their early acting days was great.

I am surprised people did not get offended by the theme of cheating.  Maybe it was so far from people’s minds in the 60’s that it was comical.  No woman thought her husband would do such a thing, so the movie was not reality to audiences, thus making it funny.  I understand this is a Billy Wilder satire, meaning it will “dark” and not so much laugh-out-loud, but the back of the DVD cover says Newsweek called it, “the finest comedies Hollywood has turned out,” and to me that was misleading.

And though I enjoyed this film, I again do not really understand what made it Oscar-worthy.  What made it better than other films at the time?  When I watch current movies, I have a basis for comparison because I watch current movies all the time.  But with this list and the movies being from various decades, I am not a big enough film buff to be able to compare this one with another comedy-drama from the same time.  I see the talent MacLaine and Lemmon possessed for the screen and the talent Wilder had for clever, fluent writing.  But is that what won the Academy Award back then?  I am not sure.  Is it worth watching?  Sure, but do I ecstatically recommend it?  No.  I am happy I was able to see these actors in their early years though and learn that the 1960’s wasn’t as sheltered and close-minded as I once believed.

#74 Silence of the Lambs, The (1991)

A serial killer, nicknamed “Buffalo Bill”, is being hunted down by the FBI and  Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster), a trainee at the FBI Academy, is assigned to interviewing Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins).  The FBI hopes Lecter, a former psychiatrist and cannibalistic serial killer, can help them find Bill (Ted Levine).  He agrees to help as long as Starling will divulge details of her past with him.  After Bill abducts a U.S. Senator’s daughter, the search turns urgent and Starling’s involvement with Lecter may be the key to finding her.  Along the way, Lecter has his own motives and his intelligence never seems to fail him.  The ending is one of suspense and thrills that should keep viewers on the edge of their seats.

It took me five minutes to come up with the last line of the synopsis because I did not want to give away the end, but I also do not want to interject my opinion.  And what is my opinion?  That though the entire movie was a thriller, the ending was definitely the most suspenseful part and it was the only part where I wanted to stop the film because I was so scared of what would happen.  You know when you are watching your favorite sports team in the final few minutes of a tied game and you want to pause the TV or leave the room because you are so nervous of the outcome?  Yes, that is what the ending of this movie did to me.  Luckily, I stuck around and stayed glued to my chair till the end.

I did find myself wondering what was so Oscar-worthy about this film.  The acting is superb.  The thrills are real.  The story line kept me involved.  But I have seen other psychological thrillers I feel the same way about. I do believe most of them were made after 1991, so maybe ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ was the first of its kind.  In trying to think of a few of these films, ‘Taking Lives’ starring Angelina Jolie and ‘Murder By Numbers’ starring Sandra Bullock come to mind.  It makes me laugh because the difference I see between those two and this one is credentials.  The acting by Hopkins, brilliant.  And Foster?  Unquestionable.  Would I ever describe Jolie or Bullock’s acting that way?  Not a chance.  However, all three plots were thrillers and involved puzzles for the audience to solve, which is why I connect the three films.  Also, there were no real twists in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’.  Starling is assigned the case in the first five minutes, we see Lecter within the first ten, and we also see Bill relatively early on.  Nothing is hidden in this film, but that does not take away from the suspense from one minute to the next.

I am in awe of Hopkins.  From the minute he appeared on-screen, I forgot I was watching a character.  If I were to have met him in person after watching that film, I am not sure whether I would have shaken his hand or run for my life.  He looked like a mastermind, whatever that may look like.  He exuded intelligence, evil, and charm playing Lecter.  I can not say I blame Starling for answering his questions and going against protocol. I found myself falling for Lecter, only to be struck back into reality after he asked the senator whether she “toughened her nipples” to breast feed her daughter.  Foster and Levine never failed me either.  Foster depicted innocence, just like the butterfly, but had a tough shell which made me proud to be a woman.  And Levine’s creepiness shone through in his walk, his talk, and vibrant emotions.

If suspense and thrills are not your thing, maybe you should keep this one on the shelves.  After writing this review, I find myself appreciating how well the plot played out, how well the cast worked together, and how phenomenal the writing behind it is.  I can now see what made it an Academy Award winner.  If it came out this year do I think it would win an award?  No, because films of its nature have been made since, but I would be happy if I found out directors use ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ as a template for their thrillers.  I definitely feel like I know more about the psychosis of serial killers and the methods to their madness.

#97 Blade Runner (1982)

Early in the 21st Century, the Tyrell Corporation produced genetically engineered replicants that were identical to humans.  Created for slave labor, they were eventually declared illegal on Earth and special policemen, called Blade Runners, were established to kill them.  Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) retired from that position, but in November 2019, his former supervisor (M. Emmet Walsh) asks him to come back after four replicants escaped.  He accepts the job and is sent out to “retire” (that is what killing them is called) the replicants for wanting to be human.  Along the way, he meets Rachael (Sean Young), a replicant who does not know she is a replicant until Rick tells her.  After she escapes, Rick is supposed to kill her, but they fall in love.  As the film goes on, his hunt for the other four replicants continues and his love affair with Rachael grows deeper.  The final scene leaves much to the imagination.

This film reminded me of a Choose Your Own Adventure book.  There were many details left unexplained, such as Rick’s status.  Was he human or replicant?  Did Rachael only have four years to live like the other replicants or was her life span longer?  Where did Rick and Rachael go in the end?  Why was the Tyrell Corporation still making the replicants?  They were not using them for labor, so what was the point?  Weren’t they scared the replicants would take over like we have seen in other futuristic Sci-Fi films?  Replicants were programmed to die after four years so their emotions would not kick in, but Roy (Rutger Hauer) said he feared his death.  How can one fear death if one can not feel?

Such intentionally ambiguous questions, but when you get to answer them on your own, what is there not to like about the plot?  This is coming from someone who HATES the Sci-Fi genre.  I literally went onto Wikipedia before watching the film and read the plot just so I knew what I was getting myself into.  And I kept reading it throughout the film because I do not always follow Sci-Fi very well.  I just wanted to make sure I knew what was going on, but to be honest I stayed glued to the film and though I doubted myself, I caught on to most of the themes and was able to follow the plot easily.  The replicants look like humans, so there are not alien forms or anything to that extent.  Though Los Angeles, where the movie takes place, is dark, dreary, and the cars looked odd, it is not unbelievably futuristic.  It is comparable to real life.  And the way the characters act is just like we do now.  So though the story line is technically Sci-Fi, it did not take me so far out of reality that I felt lost or confused.

There is not too much action, nor are the killings very brutal.  There are no long, drawn out chase scenes and I felt each scene included in the film was absolutely necessary to the plot.  The plot is simple – kill the replicants. There is then the love story on the side, which sparks questions of morals and ethics in both the audience and characters.  And the ending is enigmatic.  Being a writer, I love that I get to choose where the characters went.  I get to answer my own questions.  Develop my own stories.  This also leaves everything up for debate.  I can just see people leaving the movie theater back in 1982, arguing over what happened, was Rick a replicant or not, should he have killed Rachael, etc.  Movies that make me think – another trait I love in movies.

For those out there who fear Sci-Fi as much as I do, do not be afraid.  ‘Blade Runner’ is not as off the wall or completely unbelievable as I feel ‘Star Wars’ is.  The themes run deeper, making it something much more than just another old Sci-Fi flick.  And you do not need to be a writer, nor do you need to possess even one creative bone in your body to choose your own adventure.  It just kind of happens with this film.  We, as humans, hate being left in the unknown.  It is unsatisfying, so you will be able to naturally make up what you wanted to happen.  Imagination not needed.  I am still scared of Sci-Fi and totally dreading the day I need to watch ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (it’s number 15), but if you are going to give just one a chance, try this one.  On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being Superly, Gigantly Sci-Fi-orific, ‘Blade Runner’ is a 3.  Am I qualified to rate Sci-Fi?  Not at all, but just take my word on this one.

#41 King Kong (1933)

Director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) finds a pretty blonde, Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), to star in his newest film because he heard that is how he can make more money.  He takes her on a ship along with the ship’s crew to the Indian Ocean in search for King Kong.  He wants to use shots of Kong in his film.  Yet, Kong ends up finding Darrow first and carries her to his lair.  Luckily her and First Mate Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) fell in love along the way and he does everything to rescue her.  Denham ends up gassing Kong and bringing him to New York City to make money off of him.  Kong breaks free from his chains in NYC, which leads to the famous Empire State Building scene, a saved beauty, and one fallen beast.

The back of the DVD cover states, “King Kong saved RKO from bankruptcy…”  How?  I will tell you how – the special effects.  I was in awe.  I put myself in the shoes of someone watching in 1933.  I highly doubt anything like this had ever been seen before.  And RKO used the hell out of the special effects.  Not only was there a giant ape, but they also had dinosaurs, water monsters, and sound.  I was impressed by the various camera shots and all the scenes with Kong.  I wonder how long the editing process took after all the footage had been taken.  It is obvious that backdrops were used and that Wray’s character was nothing but a limp doll in the hands of Kong, but for 1933 it is quite impressive.

The only thing I knew of ‘King Kong’ was Kong’s image, that Fay Wray starred in the film (crossword puzzles taught me that), and that Kong climbs the Empire State Building.  The story line, dinosaurs, and odd African tribe were bonuses.  The racism, along with extremely sexist lines in the beginning, were another reminder of the decade.  I was shocked to see all the black people they hired as extras in the tribe.  This was 30 years before Civil Rights, so I can only wonder what they were paid, if anything at all.  And the emphasis on what a nuisance women are.  I laughed when Cabot’s characters said something to the affect that women can’t help the fact that they are annoying; they are just made that way.  Luckily, he falls in love with Wray’s character and overcomes his hatred for women.  Though she is blond, she came across as a strong, independent woman to me.  Kind of ironic seeing how she really is a damsel in distress throughout most of the film.

I felt like I was watching a piece of history.  To see the special effects from then and think of how far they have come now.  To see how men and women interacted with one another and how different racial groups interacted and were treated.  To see what times were like in the 1930’s as compared to now.  If all those people were told within 60 years, films would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on special effects or that using terms like “nigger,” as they did when describing Kong, was completely unacceptable in casual talk, I doubt they would believe it.  I want to say it was simpler times, but I don’t believe that is the case.  It’s just that movies were still so young and people did not need as much to be impressed because they did not have a lot of film history to build off of.  Today we do and film makers constantly compete with one another for the latest and greatest special effects and shockingly new techniques.  3D recently came out, but now every film is adding it and pretty soon, if not already, it will get old and there will need to be  something new.  Americans get bored quick and if film makers want them to shell out the $10 per film, they need to stay creative and inventive.

If you can go into this film with a sense of humor and take into account the decade it was made, you should have no trouble enjoying it as much as I did.  A major suggestion I have is to leave all comparisons at the door.  Each time I think special effects, I think James Cameron.  ‘Titanic’ in the 90’s and ‘Avatar’ in the 00’s.  Great special effects which completely overshadow any of those in ‘King Kong.’  If I had taken that attitude into this film, I would have been judgmental for the entire hour and a half Kong graced the screen, but I did not.  I left those ideas in the present and spent two hours in the mindset of a 1930’s movie goer.  It was easy to do, and if it was easy for a person like me who has seen many films from this decade, it should be no problem for anyone else.  I say rent it, take yourself back 70 years, and enjoy a piece of movie making history.  You shall be awed.

#35 Annie Hall (1977)

One word sums up this movie – relationships.  Alvy Singer (Woody Allen), a popular Manhattan comedian, meets Annie Hall (Diane Keaton), an aspiring nightclub singer.  We are taken through their relationship, the ups and the downs, with continual commentary from Allen’s character.  As one reviewer on imdb.com said, “…it serves as an interesting historical document about love in the 1970’s.”

Is it bad that I related to Allen’s neurotic character?  Or that I either understood or had personal experience with everything that went on in Singer and Hall’s relationship?  I knew I would enjoy the movie from the opening scene where Allen describes his feelings on life and relationships, quoting Groucho Marx, “I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.”  His neurosis attracted me to the film and hooked me immediately.  It is believable.  It is life.  It is what goes on in my head, but I do not always say out loud for fear of judgement.  And when a movie capitalizes on those thoughts, I am hooked.  I like movies that are relatable.

Allen and Keaton played their characters to a tee.  I have never watched an interview with Allen, but I suspect he shares traits with his character.  This is actually the first film I have ever seen him in.  And Keaton plays the role of a ditsy, yet lovable woman from the minute she meets Allen and fumbles through their first conversation.  In regards to a “historical document of love in the 1970’s” I can not attest to that since I was not born, but if I can relate to it now, then it serves as a historical document of love relationships, period.  The bliss in the beginning, followed by the want to move forward, then the fears in moving forward, a break-up, then one person calling the other for some inane reason when in reality he/she just missed the other person, then they get back together, and typically it fails yet again.  Besides the love that works out in the end, who has not had one of these relationships?  And their characters keep the plot interesting.

Allen’s commentary moved the film along as well.  I am a visual person and loved that when he talked of past events, such as within his relationships or his childhood, the film would cut to a scene of that event.  And the entire movie was choppy with time.  I failed to mention in Allen’s opening monologue, he says he just broke up with Keaton and most of the movie is him going back and describing their relationship.  The choppiness is not distracting and I only found myself getting confused a few times as to whether it was past or present, but I always figured it out or it proved irrelevant.  I am a person who needs some break in the plot to keep me stimulated and thanks to Allen’s continual commentary and storytelling, I had plenty of that.

Lastly, I must add that one thing I absolutely loved is the duration of this film – 93 minutes.  I was just telling my mom yesterday how so many of the films on this list are at least 120 minutes, and those are the short ones.  I think if a writer can get his point across in 93 minutes then that is a great writer.  I have a journalism major and I learned how to edit a paper by taking out all unnecessary words and leaving in only the important stuff.  I am also finding I have a short attention span when I watch films away from the theater, so 93 minutes is heavenly.

I have seen one other Woody Allen film in my life, ‘Match Point,’ but now I am interested in watching more of his films.  Both kept it to the point, moved the story along, and focused on relationships, which is a topic I love watching.  If anyone has suggestions of other Allen films to watch, please let me know. This one is definitely a must-see!

#63 Cabaret (1972)

Set in 1931 Berlin, this musical centers on the life of Sally (Liza Minnelli), an aspiring American actress.  She works in the Kit Kat Club, which is where a number of the musical acts occur, and lives at what appears to be a boarding house for tenants.  There she meets Brian (Michael York), an Englishman working on a degree from Oxford, and they eventually fall in love.  Sally makes no excuses for her carefree nature, both in life and with men.  Things get rocky for the two after they meet Maximilian, a Baron, and both take a liking to him.  A pregnancy throws another obstacle at the relationship, but in the end, love takes them to the place they each need to be.

I can not stop singing the praises of this film, as well as the songs from it.  First off, it is a musical, a huge plus for me.  It was set during the rise of the Nazi party, a plus being that I am fascinated by WWII, the Nazi movement, and everything related.  The guy from Austin Powers was in it (yes, that is where I know Michael York from) and was surprisingly handsome, another plus.  And Liza Minnelli looked and sang just like Judy Garland, and for someone who has been watching ‘Wizard of Oz’ since I was a wee child, this was a plus times infinity.

The only movie I have seen Minnelli in was ‘Sex and The City 2’ where she played herself.  She had one singing and dancing scene, and I was blown away by her talent, but that is all I knew of her.  She proved herself to me in this film.  Her spirit, her voice, the dancing; I would almost guarantee she took singing and dancing lessons as a child.  Not to mention, the talent she received genetically from her mom.  The heights she could take her voice during her musical numbers was incredible.  I found myself longing to work in the Kit Kat Club, or at least get up and dance on a chair in the middle of my parent’s living room.

I enjoyed watching York and Minnelli’s relationship evolve.  I honestly could not predict what would happen between them from minute to minute, and that kept me interested.  But their characters were so believable.  Minnelli’s strained relationship with her father played a huge role in her inability to commit to Brian, though it so seemed like she wanted to.  And Brian’s confusion around his sexuality explained his draw towards Minnelli and want to make that into something it was not.  They both had their issues, issues people in the real world deal with.

And in regards to my WWII fascination, Fritz (Fritz Wepper) and Natalia’s (Marisa Berenson) relationship helped me understand the hardships Jews endured in Germany as early as the 1930’s.  Their entire relationship seemed to symbolize those times, with Fritz lying about his religion and Natalia saying no to his proposal due to their different backgrounds and the rising Nazi Party.  Then Fritz having to choose between love or freedom.  I am sure many Jews in those times came face to face with similar issues.  After having watched this film, I am very interested in the history of the Nazi Party.  I have done much study on the Holocaust and the effect on the Jews, but would like to know what drove the Nazi’s to such cruelty and violence.

I would definitely recommend this film to others, especially lovers of musicals.  I am surprised I had never seen it before, but with the heavy themes and sexual undertone, it seems more like an “adult” musical versus a ‘Wizard of Oz’ or ‘West Side Story.’  The acting, the singing, the dancing – all professional and so well casted.  My respect for Minnelli has skyrocketed and I see that York can do more than play scientist to Mike Myers.  I had a friend who recently went to see Minnelli perform and I had to stop myself from making fun of her.  Who knew that a few weeks later I would be wishing I had asked her if she had a spare ticket?  Just watch ‘Cabaret’ and you will understand.

#16 Sunset Boulevard (1950)

The film opens with Joe Gillis (William Holden) lying dead in a pool.  Gillis, the narrator throughout the film, describes the scene and then takes the audience back six months to when he met Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson).  Desmond, an aging silent film star, lives with her butler and ex-husband Max (Erich von Stroheim).  She has both threatened and attempted suicide.  After Gillis takes up residency in her home, she becomes obsessed with him and with starring in a movie again.  Her insanity grows as the movie carries on and ends with a dead Gillis and a delusional Desmond in the final scene.  

This is another film where I find my age plays a role in my opinion of it.  I am too young to appreciate the intricacies of the plot.  It reminded me of ‘Fatal Attraction’ and ‘Psycho’ combined into one.  It did not strike me as an original plot, though when it was released I am sure it was.  The U.S. Library of Congress deemed it “culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant” in 1989, but since I am not associated with Hollywood, nor do I have much knowledge on actors and actresses, I could not relate.  Like I said earlier, the most I could relate it to was other films I had seen, which are not reality to me either. 

I also must admit I did not give this film my full attention.  I have a hard time giving all the films my full attention because I watch them at home as opposed to a movie theater or with someone else, where I am forced to sit still.  But this one was particularly hard.  So, maybe that is why I did not understand why Holden stayed with Swanson when he knew she loved him and felt trapped by her.  Yet, he gives up the chance to be with someone his own age who is attractive and into writing like he is to stay with Swanson.  Then, just minutes later he tries to leave Swanson only to get shot by her.  I concluded that though Swanson’s character was obviously nuts, Holden must have been equally crazy or else he would have left the situation long ago. 

The DVD cover said the movie had memorable opening and closing scenes, which I will agree with.  I enjoy movies that open in the future and take the audience back in time.  There are no surprises that way.  We all knew Holden dies, so it makes it easier to not get attached to him.  And the closing has Swanson so far from reality I did not even know what to believe anymore.   It is hilarious how the police, detectives, and reporters allow her to think she is starring in a movie.  “All right Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up.”  Classic.

Maybe I would watch it again, with someone else, so I could understand the psychological factors behind it, but not because I thought it was an incredible movie.  The scriptwriters of ‘Psycho’ and ‘Fatal Attraction’ possibly took aspects of this film and integrated them into their plots, which would mean ‘Sunset Boulevard’ led the way.  Yet, it ruined it for the later generation like myself who saw the films in the reverse order.  True, the acting was believable and the actors were talented, but nothing that blew my socks off.  I would recommend studying the film in a psychology class, but leaving it on the shelves at the local movie store when looking for a film to watch on a Saturday night.