#94 Pulp Fiction (1994)

Pulp Fiction follows the lives of different characters, all connected in one way or another, over the course of a few days.  The film opens in a coffee shop as Ringo (Tim Roth) and Yolanda (Amanda Plummer), a criminal couple, decide to rob the shop.  The film then cuts to earlier that morning as two hitmen, Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta), prepare to recapture their boss, Marsellus Wallace’s (Ving Rhames), stolen suitcase.  The film goes back and forth in time, where we see Vega take Wallace’s wife, Mia (Uma Thurman) out at Wallace’s request, boxer Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) run from Wallace after winning a fight he was supposed to intentionally lose in the fifth round, and the eventual robbing of the coffee shop with an unusual twist.

Quentin Tarantino is my favorite film maker.  He has a style unlike any other.  I have never seen a Tarantino film that went in chronological order.  They usually begin in the middle or at the end and jump from one time frame to another.  The characters are always tied to one another or have some sort of twisted connection and story.  Once I feel I know where the plot is going or that I understand what is about to happen, Tarantino comes in with a kicker and changes it up.  I love unpredictability in films and Tarantino knows how to achieve that.  And then to make the film even better, he enlists a cast full of remarkable actors who we, as the audience, get to see in roles we would not normally picture them in.

The ingredients are simple.  Tarantino took 27 scenes filled with witty dialogue, splattered some graphic violence in between, and added more than a dash of humor to all of it to create Pulp Fiction.  The name of the film comes from pulp magazines and crime novels of the mid-1920’s popular for their graphic violence and slap-happy comedy.  When I think of graphic violence, I do think of much worse than what I see in Pulp Fiction, but at the same time I had the opportunity to watch this with my mom and felt it would be best if she, a woman none too fond of blood and guts, took a pass on this film.  I covered my eyes a hell of a lot more in Saw than I ever did with this film, but if you are squeamish or the idea of a man getting killed by a Ninja sword slashing his chest gives you chills, you may want to pass on this film.  I can not even believe I am telling somebody to pass on this film because it is incredible, but I must be honest.

Tarantino is the only director who I will run out and see his latest film within the first few weeks it is released.  His imagination has yet to disappoint me.  Pulp Fiction was the second film of his I ever saw (the first being True Romance).  Due to its nonlinear storyline, eccentric characters, and witty repartee this film is anything but conventional.  I am not surprised that Tarantino never went to film school.  Hell, he did not even graduate from high school.  He took a few acting classes, worked in a video rental store in his early 20’s, and wrote hit first screenplay by the age of 24.  His talent is natural, not college-created.  He comes up with the ideas, writes them down, gets the funding to make them a film, and that is what we see.  Right before creating this film, he was given the chance to direct Speed and Men in Black, but turned them down to write this script.  That is not only a director who takes pride in his work, but a man who wants to put in the full effort and be able to call it his own versus achieving quick Hollywood fortune and fame.  Tarantino takes risk and that is what I admire about him.  Without those risks, this new genre of film may never have seen the light of day.

And the actors put in their fair share of work as well.  Grease is one of my all time favorite films, but I’d have to say this is my favorite Travolta role, and the same goes for Jackson’s portrayal.  Jackson’s delivery of that bible passage is outstanding and I am still in awe of his memorization skills.  Thurman’s coolness as Mia contrasts Vincent’s anxiety over taking her out.  Thurman and Travolta have great chemistry on screen.  Willis plays his bad boy self as boxer Butch Coolidge and Rhames plays tough ass Wallace in a boss position, which makes the position Tarantino puts them in together too ironic.  And some of the lesser known actors, such as Coolidge’s girlfriend, Fabienne (Maria de Medieros), shine as well.  She is actually one of my favorite characters, along with Harvey Keitel’s portrayal of “The Wolf”, who takes care of a messy situation with such confidence and finesse I would want to hire him to either run my future business or clean my apartment.

I highly recommend this film, as well as any other Tarantino film.  They all contain moments of graphic violence, but for those of you that can handle it, see this film.  You are honestly missing out on an entire genre of film if you have never watched a Tarantino masterpiece.  He is his own genre.  I am definitely not a fan of martial art films, but I love Kill Bill.  I despise all action films and can guarantee you that watching Willis and Travolta in Pulp Fiction never reminded me of their action films.  Tarantino films are all intelligence and imagination, not bombs and battles.  If this were my list, Pulp Fiction would be closer to number one and would not be the only Tarantino film on it.

#10 The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland) lives on a farm in Kansas with her Auntie Em (Clara Bandick) and Uncle Henry (Charley Grapewin).  Dorothy dreams of finding a place “over the rainbow” where life is easier and the local “witch” Miss Gulch (Margaret Hamilton) is not trying to take her dog Toto away.  One day a terrible tornado strikes Kansas, knocking Dorothy unconscious.  She wakes to find herself in the center of the cyclone, landing in the colorful land of Oz, a place “over the rainbow.”  She is greeted by several munchkins and the good witch Glinda (Billie Burke), all praising her for killing the Wicked Witch of the East.  However, her sister, The Wicked Witch of the West (Hamilton), is none too pleased and vows revenge on Dorothy.  On her way to the Emerald City to find the Wizard (Frank Morgan), Dorothy meets The Scarecrow (Ray Bolger), The Tin Man (Jack Haley) and The Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr).  They hope the Wizard can give them each what they need, but with The Wicked Witch of The West still alive, those hopes may never be realized and Dorothy could be stuck in the land of Oz forever.

I have seen this movie well over 20 times.  I have been watching it since I was little girl.  I remember gathering five pillows, piling them on the couch, and sitting atop my stack of feathers watching this film.  I have seen it in the theater two times, both as an adult with my mom, and I watched it this time on a plane with my mom.  It holds fond memories for me and has for over 20 years.  It is like the film that never stops giving.  When I have children, this will be one of the first movies they watch.  It is timeless.

What makes it so special?  I am not even sure I can put it into words, or maybe I just did in the previous paragraph.  The memories.  I do not believe I am unique either.  I am sure there are millions of people who have a Wizard of Oz memory somewhere in their lifetime, whether it be watching it as a child or watching it for the first time with their own children, seeing their faces light up as the munchkins welcome Dorothy to Oz or at the sight of those ruby-red slippers.  I had a pair of ruby-red slippers, and I actually was able to call a pair of shoes my “ruby-red slippers” when I played Dorothy for a local theater as a pre-teen.  See?  The memories just keep coming to me as I write this review.  They are endless.

My mom expressed something after the film that I wholeheartedly agree with.  Despite Dorothy being a childish role, Garland takes it very seriously and seems to put her whole self into the part.  I know this is why she is praised for her acting.  It does not matter who she was playing, she is an actress and she never forgets that she is there to do her job.  Garland is also a remarkable singer and every time I listen to “Over the Rainbow,” I get goose bumps.  The one thing I can not stand is that dreadful dress she has to wear throughout the entire film.  It does nothing for her figure, but it has now become a staple of this film.  Maybe I am still angry that I had to wear a dress just like it when I was in the play and when I look back at the pictures, I can not help but cringe at the sight.  I guess little girls are not supposed to have forms though, right?

The other actors add so much to their characters as well.  Burke gives Glinda a peaceful, quiet voice and moves with elegance.  Hamilton with her wicked laugh and high-pitched voice.  I had to lower the volume on my computer each time she spoke or else my ear drums were going to pop.  I never forget Bahr’s lion-like voice and his cowardly facial expressions or Bolger’s elastic appearance with his frail body moving all over the place.  And Haley’s smile or the way he can go from stiff to springy.  It is really an incredible cast and unforgettable characters.

The soundtrack and setting are utterly amazing as well.  I can not tell you how many times I have had The Lollipop Guild’s song stuck in my head without even having just watched the movie.  Or how hard it was not to start singing out loud on the plane during The Scarecrow, The Tin Man, or The Cowardly Lion’s solos.  And every time Dorothy lands in Oz and opens the door to the new, colorful world I get excited.  The Yellow Brick Road, tiny houses, and Emerald City blow my mind each time I see them.  Did I mention green is my favorite color?  If someone told me I could live in the Emerald City, I’d have my bags packed in five minutes or less.

This film is number one on my list of films you must see in your lifetime. I took one of my girlfriends with me to see it for her first time when we were sixteen.  I honestly do not understand how any American can get through their life without seeing this film.  I think it would be a tragedy.  And now with the film being enhanced with current technology and the colors being even more vivid, there is no excuse.  It is timeless, like I said before, and for all ages.  It gets me out of reality only to remind me that I like my reality.  Put watching this film on your bucket list and get it done sooner rather than later because Garland’s performance is worth it, The Emerald City is worth it, and the memory department of your brain will thank you.

#32 The Godfather Part II (1974)

Two story lines are depicted in this film.  One picks up where The Godfather left off in 1958.  Michael (Al Pacino) is now the Godfather of the Corleone family and lives with his wife Kaye (Diane Keaton) and their two children in Lake Tahoe, Nevada.  Michael’s incessant drive to gain control over the casinos in Las Vegas results in explosive feuds amongst the mafiosi, an attempt on Michael’s life, and rifts within the Corleone family.  The other story line is a series of flashbacks beginning in 1901 and involving Michael’s father, Vito Corleone (played by Robert DeNiro).  His rise to power in New York and eventual founding of the Corleone family is depicted in the flashbacks.

I enjoyed this film as much as I did The Godfather.  I  read my review on The Godfather a few minutes ago and I remember writing all of that, but I did not realize how much the film artistically awed me.  I can not say I felt the same for the sequel or that the sets and music stood out for me as much, but it is definitely well-made and just as realistic.  I again did not feel any strong emotions towards the characters or events that occurred during the film, but my anger towards Michael definitely grew.  By the end, I was wishing someone would come into his Lake Tahoe compound and assassinate him unexpectedly, but with it being a trilogy I knew chances of that happening were unlikely.

The brilliance of this film lies in the parallel story lines.  To compare Michael’s rise to power and his father’s is captivating.  Both came from corruption and crime, yet neither intended to partake in the criminal activities.  It is heartbreaking to see all that Vito had to do to make himself known amongst the New York families, then watch as Michael rips it apart with his greed and rashness.  And me, being a huge fan of DeNiro, love that he was worked into this plot.  He won an Oscar for his role and Pacino was nominated for his.  Both deliver exceptional performances.  Pacino says so much by saying so little.  It is truly incredible.  This is said to be one of his greatest performances of all time.

I was blown away by the excessive use of the Italian language in this film.  There were times when I looked away or started working at my computer, and had to rewind because I missed the captions along the bottom of the screen.  And it was not extras speaking the language, it was the main actors like DeNiro, Pacino, John Cazale (Fredo), Bruno Kirby (Clemenza), and even Robert Duvall (Tom Hagen).  I could not stop wondering whether they knew Italian already or learned it for the movie.  It was just more evidence of the amount of time Francis Ford Coppola put into this film, as well as the actors and screenwriters, to ensure its success and realism.

This film won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1974, just as The Godfather did in 1972. It is by far the best sequel I have ever seen and the only sequel I can say is just as good as the first film.  A few of my favorite sequels are Wayne’s World 2, My Girl 2, and Kill Bill 2, but none compare to the cinematic talent and impact of The Godfather and The Godfather II. I am scared to watch the third and final film in the trilogy, The Godfather Part III, because what if it does not match the talent of the first two and ruins my feelings on the entire series?  I think I will hold off on it for a while and wait until the titillating taste of these two films is done ruminating in my mind.

#84 Easy Rider (1969)

Two hippie bikers, Wyatt (Peter Fonda) and Billy (Dennis Hopper), set off from Los Angeles to New Orleans.  Along the way, they pickup a hitchhiker (Luke Askew) and hang out at his commune, get thrown in jail for parading without a license, befriend the local drunk (Jack Nicholson) and take him on part of their trip, and get two local prostitutes to accompany them to Mardi Gras and trip on LSD in a cemetery.         

During the opening credits, I was immediately awed when I read that Fonda and Hopper wrote, produced, directed and starred in this film.  As the director, Hopper not only had to act in the scenes, but also direct the cast and crew while controlling the dramatic aspects involved.  And Fonda, as producer, took a financial risk with this New Hollywood film and unconventional methods of filming.  It proved to be quite a success, both with audiences in the late 60s’ and with myself.   

The first thing I noticed about the film was its unusual transitions between scenes.  Most of them involved a flash technique where it would flash between the old scene and the new scene. I did not know what was going on at first, but once I figured it out I really liked it.  I clearly knew when a new scene or day was beginning for Wyatt and Billy.  The camera work reminded me of home movies.  I assume the equipment used was not the best of the best since this was a low-budget film, but that made it even better.  The shots and angles gave the film a personal, intimate touch, adding to its appeal and eccentricity.  The most outstanding camera work occurred during the LSD scene.  The choppy, quick edits and overexposed film captured their bad trip and the confusion they found themselves in.  I love when simple camera work speaks for the scene and expresses ideas not fully conveyed by the actors.

The acting is genuine and the characters are realistic.  A tall and lanky Fonda, and Hopper with his handle-bar mustache, make two of the most incredible hippies.  They compliment each other.  Wyatt, nicknamed “Captain America”,  is easy-going and slow-paced, while Billy is always looking for the next thing, the next place to go.  This contrast becomes blatantly obvious in the end when Wyatt says, “We blew it,” speaking of finding spiritual freedom, and Billy remains oblivious to any kind of spiritual path the two were on.  The restaurant scenes were shot with locals from the area and the commune was based on a real commune in Santa Monica.  Also, this film marked the beginning of Nicholson’s career.  He played Hanson, the young, naive, town drunk and lawyer.  His character and acting are almost as good as McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.

I admire Hopper and Fonda for all the work they did on this film.  Capturing a time frame that I was unable to live during, but can see and feel on the big screen.  In 1998, it was added to the National Film Registry as having been deemed, “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”  And not to give anything away, but this film has an absolutely unforgettable ending.  I can not call it unpredictable because if you watch real close, Wyatt has a premonition to it.  It is a cinematic classic and I strongly recommend watching it as a change of pace.  It is different, but in a refreshing and artistic way.

#72 The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Convicted of killing his wife and her lover, banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is sentenced to two consecutive life sentences at the Shawshank State Penitentiary in 1947.  Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding (Morgan Freeman), serving a life sentence, is the man at Shawshank that prisoners go to to obtain items from the outside.  After asking Red to get him a pick axe for his rock collection hobby, the two slowly become friends and form a strong bond.  Andy and his financial skills become extremely valuable to the prison staff, including the warden (Bob Gunton) who uses his skills to make himself and the prison a great amount of money.  When a new inmate (Gil Bellows) enters the prison and has the name of the man who would prove Andy’s innocence, which he has claimed to be since day one, the warden must decide whether to give Andy a shot at freedom or keep the information hidden for his own personal benefit.

I watched this film over five years ago, but it felt like I had just seen it.  The characters, the scenes, the emotions are unforgettable.  This film has an amazing plot, which makes sense since it is based on a Stephen King novel, and an amazing cast.  I went to Blockbuster to rent this film specifically because after watching M*A*S*H, I desperately needed an outstanding film to restore my faith in the cinema.  It didn’t let me down. 

I have never seen a film with Morgan Freeman I did not like.  Besides being an incredible actor, he possesses a certain aura that makes it impossible for me not to like him.  An honest gentleman, strong in his convictions and trustworthy in his actions, with a knack for sensing bullshit when it is being fed to him.  I am speaking of him as the man, not just the character he played.  Of course, these are my own ideas since I have never met the man, but I look up to him.  Also, with each character he plays, including Red, he is blind to skin color and social standing.  He treats all men equally.  No one gets special treatment, yet no one gets stomped on for being who they are.  Everyone is fair game to Freeman. 

I forgot how good Tim Robbins is as Andy Dufresne.  Throughout the film, Red is narrating just as he does in King’s novel and the audience hears his description of Dufresne when he first enters prison.  A man who seemed to have an invisible shield around him, not noticing where he was or what was going on around him.  Aloof in a way.  And that is just as Robbins appears in this role.  Yet, his character develops over time and we see him get more comfortable in prison as the years go on.  It is interesting to watch him resume a “normal” life in prison and gain back self-esteem through his role as a banker.  The ending is also guaranteed to shock you a bit, but make sense in the end when relayed back to Dufresne and the wit about him. 

I highly recommend this film for all.  There are a few violent scenes, but they are easy to see coming and cover your eyes for.   I have never considered a film’s intelligence before, but for some reason that word keeps coming to mind when I think of The Shawshank Redemption.  The plot is smart and clever, and most of the characters are as well.  As an audience member, you do not walk away feeling dumber than when you first sat down and if you are able to figure out the ending, you may just walk away feeling pretty darn good about yourself and your ability to uncover character’s motives.  I hope one day in the future, this movie appears higher on A.F.I.’s Top 100 List because it is one of the few great films that have come out of the movie-making business in the last 20 years by a long shot.

#54 M*A*S*H (1970)

Set during the Korean War in 1951, this film follows a medical unit stationed at the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital.  Captain “Hawkeye” Pierce (Donald Sutherland), Captain “Duke” Forrest (Tom Skerritt) and Captain “Trapper” John McIntyre (Elliot Gould) are the three new surgeons to the hospital.  The plot, which is episodic, follows their medical career with the hospital.  Problems with an extremely religious tent mate (Robert Duvall) and the arrival of a newly assigned chief nurse nicknamed “Hot Lips” (Sally Kellerman), and a friendly game of football between two hospitals are a few of the episodes within the film.

This was by far the hardest movie I have had to make it through on this list.  It was absolutely dreadful and I am baffled as to how it made this list, why they would ever make this plot into a television show, and then how that television show gained such popularity.  I did not laugh once, nor did I crack a smile.  I could barely understand Sutherland most of the time and could not keep up with the episodes.  After reading about Robert Altman, the director of this film, I understand this film was shot in his style; scenes containing several simultaneous conversations and frequent zoom shots.  Also, though it was set during the Korean War, it was really a representation of the chaos and confusion in the Vietnam War. That being said, I will not complain about it being confusing because I guess that was the point, but I will not retract my initial statement.

The film opens with a satirical song called “Suicide is Painless.”  I have a great sense of humor, but something did not sit right with me upon hearing that song.  Sutherland is one of the first characters we see and from the get go, I could barely understand what he was saying, or slurring I should say.  That made it difficult to understand who he was and what he was doing.  I could tell the scenes were laden with satire and were not meant to be taken seriously, but rather than being funny they just appeared foolish to me.  If I were a war surgeon, I’d take offense at this film.  Sutherland and Gould looked like schmucks who could care less about their jobs and more about golf and women.  Every scene in the hospital is filled with bloody patients and surgeons poking needles in them.  I am still not sure what this film’s message is.  I think it is just a jab at America’s involvement with the  Vietnam War and maybe it offends me because I am more patriotic than I think.  I just can not believe so many people enjoyed it back then without taking offense.

The time frame I am watching it in versus the time frame of its release brings up a point.  The Vietnam War was still being heavily waged in 1970, but also it was around that time when the media was beginning to leak America’s faults in the war.  Americans were becoming upset over US involvement in Vietnam and wanted to see changes.  This film could have been fuel to their fire and gained popularity with its anti-establishment humor.  I will take the difference in time periods into account when considering its popularity, but I am shocked at how much humor has changed in a 40 year period.  If this film were released today, all I can see is the word “bomb” flashing in neon lights in my head.

I admire Altman’s style because it is unique and I do not fault him for this film.  The film was nominated for five Academy Awards, Best Director being one of them, and I will agree with that.  I enjoy when directors have a unique style and their work is well recognized.  I know Vietnam was a confusing time and Altman fully succeeded in confusing the hell out of me.

I have a feeling I am missing something about this film.  It won an Oscar for Best Screenplay and that is insanity to me.  The acting was nothing special.  Besides the three main surgeons, I did not recognize anyone in this film.  And the humor, which I can not say enough, was lacking in every single way.  I am shocked that “Airplane” did not make A.F.I.’s list because it is a satirical classic filled with laugh-out-loud funny moments.  If you want to watch a funny war satire, go rent “Hot Shots.”  Or if you are in the mood for a satirical trilogy, I highly recommend the “Naked Gun” series.  At least now I can be grateful that for over 20 years, I have flipped past every channel playing M*A*S*H reruns and my reaction to this film will guarantee that action happening for the remainder of my life.

#33 One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)

Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a prison inmate serving time for statutory rape, is willingly transfered to a small mental institution to be tested for mental illness.  He does so thinking it would be more relaxing to spend the end of his sentence there than on a prison farm.  However, he ends up getting in deeper than he expected and comes across obstacles, such as a heartless nurse (Louise Fletcher) who makes it impossible for him to be released, that he never initially expected.

Without the actor’s exceptional performances in this film, it never would have gotten the accolades it did.  From the minute Nicholson appears on screen, I was in awe of his acting.  McMurphy (Nicholson) is the cool character.  All the other men want to be McMurphy.  If the mental institution were compared to a high school, McMurphy would be the star quarterback of the football team.  The viewer is also supposed to catch on to the fact that he is faking mental illness to get out of working at the prison farm.  Nicholson had both – the cool and the sly.  Though he was manipulative, his charm and ability to talk with all the patients made him a very likable lead character.

Nicholson’s sanity would have never been as obvious without outstanding performances by the other actors in the film.  Christopher Lloyd, Danny Devito, and Brad Dourif are just a few of the actors seen in this film, all three portraying patients with mental illnesses.  Their insanity accentuated Nicholson’s sanity, just as Nurse Ratched’s (Fletcher) cruelty intensified Nicholson’s good characteristics.  The cover of the DVD calls Ratched, “…among the most coldly monstrous villains in film history.”  I can not say I fully agree with that, but she is cold and Fletcher did receive an Oscar for performance.  Nicholson did as well.

When I say the actors “make” the film, that does not mean the screenplay is lacking in any way.  It too won an Academy Award for Best Writing and the film itself won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1976.  Adapted from author Ken Kesey’s 1962 novel of the same name, the plot is riveting.  Intricate characters, twists and turns, suspense, humor, drama – it has it all.  But it really is a film centered around the characters and who they are, which is why I say the actors “make” the film.

I highly recommend this film.  It is by far Nicholson’s best performance ever.  The ending is a little disturbing, but so powerful.  Each character possess’ a certain power and magnitude on screen.  I never knew there were so many different types of crazy until I watched this film.  It makes me want to read the book again and see how exact each actor portrayed his or her character.  Words can not satisfy the awe I wish to express about this film and the performances.  Rent it and watch it.  It’ll blow your mind.

#40 The Sound of Music (1965)

Set in Austria in the late 1930s, Maria (Julie Andrews) lives in an Abbey and is practicing to be a nun. However, she can not seem to follow the rules and though all the nuns like her personally, they do not know what to do about her behavior.  Mother Abbess (Peggy Wood) sends her to the Von Trapp house to be a governess.  Georg Von Trapp (Christopher Plummer) is a widowed navy captain with seven children.  Maria brings her love of music into the Von Trapp house, teaching the children to sing and play. Though Georg objects to her methods initially, her charm slowly begins to melt his cold heart.  He must then decide whether to go through with his plans to wed Baroness Elsa Schraeder (Eleanor Parker) or admit his true feelings.  And Maria must decide whether the life of a nun is really for her or if she found her true calling while working for the Von Trapps.

I had no idea this plot was based on the memoir of a real woman named Maria Augusta von Trapp.  It originally opened in 1959 on Broadway.  Six years later, 20th Century Fox turned it into an Academy Award winning film.  I enjoyed it, but I am left wondering how it is third on the list of all-time inflation-adjusted box office hits?  Besides a heart-warming performance from Andrews and some catchy songs, I did not find anything special about it.  I am still having trouble getting the song “Edelweiss” out of my head and it is driving me crazy.  It would be nice to have “Do-Re-Mi” stuck in there so at least I would be learning something.

Speaking of music, this is a true musical.  I say that in comparison to films like ‘Cabaret’ or ‘Singin in the Rain.’  They break out into song every now and then, but nowhere near as much as this film.  That was not a problem for me.  Actually, I enjoyed it because sometimes they would repeat songs and that meant I could fast forward the scene to get through the movie quicker.  My cheating ways had little do with me not liking the movie.  It was mainly due to the fact that the film was three hours long and my attention span seems to be shrinking more and more each day.  If you enjoy musical breaks during films, then this is one you should see.  I did want to jump out of my chair during a few of them and dance along.  Andrews smile and enthusiasm tend to evoke those feelings from me.  It always happens during ‘Mary Poppins,’ so I was not totally surprised when I found myself singing ‘Sound of Music’ with her in the opening scene on the hills.

I also enjoyed the performance by Plummer.  I found myself growing fond of him as he let down his guard and opened himself up to the music.  I believe music can create miracles and this film follows that belief.  It brings the children closer to their father by breaking down the father’s wall and it opens the lines of communication between the characters.  In reality, the Von Trapp children formed the Trapp Family Choir upon moving to the United States.  After changing their name to the Trapp Family Singers, they created relief funds for those struggling in Austria and made a few LP’s with RCA before disbanding.  Music helped them get a start in the United States and led them out of the danger they faced with the Nazis in Austria.  Music saved their lives.

What I really am baffled about is the ending.  It came out of left field.  I will not ruin it for those who have never seen the film, but I will say it does not fit.  The film is light-hearted.  Maria brings happiness and joy to a family in desperate need of it.  I expected a happy ending, and though it ultimately is, it is laden with serious historical events.  I feel the ending should have been chopped off.  After singing and dancing around for two and a half hours, I am not looking for my mood to be taken in the complete opposite direction.

There are several other musicals I would recommend before choosing this film.  The plot flows, the characters are charming, and the music is catchy, but it just does not do anything for me.  I have no want to go out and listen to the soundtrack over and over again as I did with ‘Cabaret,’ this film will not be on my Christmas wish list like ‘Gone With the Wind,’ and I would rather watch Julie Andrews in ‘Mary Poppins’ any day over ‘The Sound of Music.’  Like I said before, if you enjoy musicals with a lot of music, watch it and see what you think.  But watch out for that ending.  One minute I was thinking about ‘Re’ being a drop of golden sun and the next I was catapulted back to a reality I was not prepared to return to.

#2 The Godfather (1972)

The Corleone’s, led by Don Vito (Marlon Brando), are a Sicilian mafia family based in New York City.  The movie opens in the summer of 1945.  After refusing to take part in drug sales with a fellow mafia family, Don Vito is shot five times and bed-ridden.  His sons “Sonny” (James Caan), Michael (Al Pacino), and Fredo (John Cazale) must take over for him.  Michael never took part in the family business, however after the attempt on his father’s life, he begins to play a key role and eventually becomes the new Don.  The film spans a ten-year period, upon which peace comes and goes amongst all the mafia families and the Corleone family begin their slow descent into major destruction.

Well made.  Those are the two words circulating in my head.  Outstanding cast, appropriate musical score, beautiful sets, and superbly written screenplay.  When I focus on those features, I understand it’s placement on A.F.I.’s List and agree that it is one of the greatest films ever made.  However, if the list were based on emotions and what evokes mine, the placement would not be the same.  It did not give me the same tingles as previous movies have, nor do I feel any lasting affects from the film itself.  It is equivalent to admiring paintings by an artist you know is extremely talented, but having no desire to actually buy his artwork.  I would never argue with the person who did buy the artwork, rather I’d be jealous that they felt something and I did not. 

It goes without saying that this film is better than ‘Goodfellas’ both in mine and A.F.I.’s opinion.  It is darker, literally and figuratively, with a more serious undertone, and despite ‘Goodfellas’ being a true story, ‘The Godfather’ seems more realistic and believable.  ‘Goodfellas’ is a comedy compared to ‘The Godfather’ with it’s off-the-cuff murders, insane marital affairs, and Joe Pesci, who I find difficult to see as any other character than Harry, the “Sticky Bandit,” from ‘Home Alone’.  ‘Goodfellas’ is amateur material compared to Coppola’s ‘Godfather’.

Every piece of scenery screams authenticity, whether it is an obscure Italian restaurant in New York City or the countryside of a small village in Italy.  Sicilian towns were used for exterior locations while Michael was in Italy, but most of the shooting was done in New York City.  Coppola used older buildings and sets to resemble the late 40s/early 50s and hired local Italian-Americans as extras for the opening wedding scene, asking them to drink wine and party as if it were a real wedding.   He never once used a Hollywood set and only shot one scene in a California town.  He achieved the authenticity he aimed for, both in keeping with the times and with the New York City vibe.  Former gangster, Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano, said he, “..left the movie stunned… I mean I floated out of the theater. Maybe it was fiction, but for me, then, that was our life. It was incredible. I remember talking to a multitude of guys, made guys, who felt exactly the same way.”

Every actor performed his or her character exquisitely.  Brando won his second Academy Award and first Golden Globe for his portrayal of Don Vito.  Pacino, Caan, and Robert Duvall (who played Don Vito’s informally adopted son Tom Hagen) all received nominations.  Again, nothing was over-the-top and when I say this, the show on my mind is ‘The Sopranos’.  In that show, when a character is identified as the “angry” one it means he goes and kills people all the time at any given moment and 85 percent of the time it creates problems.  In ‘The Godfather’, Sonny is the “angry” character but besides flying off the edge when he learns his sister was beat up by her husband, he never acts too dramatic.  Every character has a calm about them and it makes it easier to watch the movie without getting anxious or worked up.  There are a few tense moments where I got nervous about what was to come, but that was Coppola creating intended suspense, not unnecessary anxiety. 

And in speaking of awards, it won the Academy Award and Golden Globe for Best Picture and Best Screenplay, as well as the Golden Globe for Best Score.  It would have won the Academy Award for Best Score, but it was disqualified when the board realized some of the music had been used in a previous film.  I mentioned earlier the music definitely adds to the effect and rhythm of the film.   Director Stanley Kubrick said ‘The Godfather’ was just possibly the best film ever made and definitely had the best cast ever comprised.        

I do not mean to use stats and various quotes to convey the importance of this film, but since it did not touch me emotionally it is the easiest for me to do.  I respect this movie greatly and it has helped me to understand why I do not always agree with the A.F.I. List.  If I had based my review on emotions, I would have slammed this film and completely missed out on its artistic and cinematic mastery.  It would have been an insult to Coppola, the cast, the crew, and to my intelligence.  I am a journalist, which means I have to separate the facts from my feelings.  I am also a reviewer, which means I can share my feelings with you, but can not leave out the facts.  I highly recommend this film to everybody.  Up-and-coming directors and screenwriters should be forced to watch and study this film.  I may not have been touched emotionally, but I was blown away by the skill and labor that went into creating this film.  It truly is an artistic masterpiece.