#42 Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) meets Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) outside of her home as he attempts to steal her mother’s car and is immediately drawn to him.  She takes off with him, agreeing to be his partner in crime.  Robbing banks is Clyde’s specialty, however their first couple of hold-ups don’t go quite as planned and they realize they need help.  Upon meeting gas station attendant C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard), they lure him into their world of crime and the duo becomes a trio.  And once Clyde’s brother Buck (Gene Hackman) is released from prison, he and his wife Blanche (Estelle Parsons) join in on the spree.  They quickly become the most notorious bank robbers in the Central United States during the Great Depression, trying to get the most they can from their criminal lives before their fatal end.

Based on a true story, the beauty of this film is that director Arthur Penn never set out to make it intrinsically biographical.  It is loosely based on the life and times of Bonnie and Clyde, providing little detail about their crimes and giving only a general idea of what they were like and how they acted.  It is extremely glamorized, but it is supposed to be and that is what makes it work.  It is sexually charged, brutally graphic, and extremely exciting.  I found myself considering a life of crime midway through and pondering whether I would have joined Clyde or not.  If he looked like Warren Beatty, I’d have to go with yes.

Bonnie and Clyde is considered one of the first New Hollywood era films.  It broke several taboos and was a hit with the younger generation.   Historically, it opened the door for filmmakers to be more candid with the sexual and violent content of their films.  I found it refreshing.  It is rare to watch a film from the 1960s where an unmarried man and woman are about to have sex, but it is even rarer then to have the man be unable to perform.  Clyde’s impotence is spoken about and depicted a few times throughout the film and though I am unsure whether this was true for the real Clyde Barrow, I am sure it is something men watching the film could relate to.  And the violence, though not offensively graphic, did strike me with its bold realism.  The final scene is outstanding and I was in awe of how authentic it looked.  This was one of the first films to use squibs, which is a small explosive device placed inside an actor’s clothing to imitate bullet hits.  They’d also place sacks of fake blood within the device, so when it detonated the blood would squirt out to ensure the authenticity of the shot.

The entire cast impressed me.  Both Beatty and Dunaway had such charm that it was hard not to take a liking to their characters.  I could feel the sexual tension between them, but I could also feel the love and devotion.  They had on-screen chemistry and it worked wonders for their performance.  Hackman did a great job as always and Parsons, who played his wife, did such a great job that it earned her an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.  The real Blanche Barrow complained that the portrayal made her look like a, “screaming horse’s ass.”  I fully agree, but Parsons played one of the best screaming horse’s ass I have ever seen.  Her shrilly voice is so annoying and her incredibly persistent nagging so offensive that you know why Bonnie can not stand her.

The other Academy Award this film won was for Best Cinematography.  The camera angles and shots, especially during the robbery scenes, are creative and take on a life of their own.  Because of the camera placement, I could feel the chaos when a robbery did not go right, the tension when something bad was about the happen, and the frustration when Clyde could not perform.  The cinematography added a crucial tone to the film.  The cinematographers were influenced by French New Wave directors, which is evident in the rapid shift of tone and choppy editing.  Without these techniques and several others, this film would not have elicited the emotions and feelings necessary to make it what it was.

As much as I enjoy this film, I can’t call it a “must see.”  In terms of film history, it is significant and deserves much credit for opening the door to graphic violence and sexual content.  In terms of incredible cinematography and an awesome final scene, this one takes the cake.  However, if you never have a chance to watch it, I would not call that a tragedy by any means.  If you do watch it, supposing violence and sex do not offend you, you will like it.  Just remember, that urge to rob a bank will pass; the key is to stay home until it does.

#71 Saving Private Ryan (1998)

During the Invasion of Normandy, Captain John H. Miller (Tom Hanks) is given orders to find Private First Class James Francis Ryan (Matt Damon).  Within days of one another, Ryan’s three brothers were killed in action and General George Marshall wants Private James Ryan found and brought home so his mother does not lose all her sons.  Captain Miller constructs a group of six Rangers from his company and one Corporal Upham who speaks French and German to scour France for Private Ryan.  Though at first appearing to be an impossible task, Private Ryan is found in Ramelle defending a strategically important bridge.  With strict orders to bring him home immediately, Captain Miller is put in a difficult spot when Private Ryan refuses to go home.  Should he listen to the orders of his superiors or allow a man who never asked to go home finish the job he set out to do?

If the American Film Institute finds Saving Private Ryan to be Top 100 movie material, they might as well put Pearl Harbor and Enemy at the Gates on the list too because I saw no difference.  I do not mean to sound ignorant because I know that no film could ever truly represent what war is like, but this film was more Hollywood than any of the other war films I have watched on this list.  With a $70 million budget, a cast of top stars, and a host of modern special effects, I couldn’t see it being anything but Hollywood.

The story is extremely creative.  Writer Robert Rodat came up with the idea after seeing a monument in Putney Corners, New Hampshire dedicated to four brothers who died during the Civil War.  I am impressed by his creativity because I have done that before.  I walked the cemetery, reading tombstones, pondering all the stories I could come up with based on what I thought their lives were like.  I never put any of those ideas down on paper, but Rodat did and devised a clever plot for director Steven Spielberg to work with.

And Spielberg did work with it.  The script was originally given to Hanks who then handed it over to Spielberg to direct.  Spielberg holds great interest in World War II, calling it, “the most significant event of the last 100 years.”  He wanted this film to look real.  He did a majority of the shooting in Europe, some in Normandy, France and some in England and Ireland.  He used real guns, tanks, and  landing crafts from WWII to establish the authenticity.  He even had the cast endure ten days of boot camp training, minus Damon, to incite the resentment they were supposed to feel towards Damon’s character.

Another thing Spielberg wanted was to make this film look as close to the color newsreel footage from the 1940’s as possible.  Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski removed the film from the camera lens in order to do this.  I was shocked when I read about that because I did not get that feel at all.  The film did have a dull color compared to the Technicolor films we see today, but I always knew I was watching a film from the late 90’s.  Not once did it feel like something from fifty years prior.

Speaking of cinematography, that was the absolute best part of the entire film.  The battle scenes are awe-inspiring, especially the one on Omaha Beach.  There are various camera angles, slow-motion action shots, underwater camera shots, and a few other techniques used to give the audience an intimate look at the fighting.  The opening 24-minute sequence at Omaha Beach has been called the “best battle scene of all time” by Empire magazine and I will have to agree.  Afterwards, I remember thinking, “Wow.  I bet that is what it really was like.”  Meaning, no other film’s depiction of battle has seemed so real or intense to me.  It is incredible.

The actors were not so incredible.  Matt Damon and Tom Hanks are two actors I am on and off about.  Sometimes I like them; sometimes they get on my nerves.  In this case, it was the latter.  They added to my “Hollywood” feeling.  Hanks is not a man I see fighting in a war.  He looks awkward with a gun.  His portrayal is utterly unbelievable and I found it hard to watch him in that role.  And Damon, though I fully agree that he looks like a “Private Ryan,” just did not do it for me.  I would have wanted to feel for him, to get attached to him so I saw the value in trying to save him.  That never happened and though I am not blaming Damon, I can not come up with anything nice to say about his performance.  On the other hand, my dislike for the top two stars of the film worked in the other actors favor.  I really appreciated their portrayal of soldiers in war, especially Ed Burns, Giovanni Ribisi, and Adam Goldberg.  I could see their emotions in the way they spoke their lines and I really did feel the resentment, frustration, and sadness brought on by their trials.

Nominated for 11 Academy Awards, it took home five awards for Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound.  I agree with all five.  Like I previously mentioned, the cinematography is the best part and the way the sound and film are edited to portray the events is incredible.  I know Spielberg put his heart and soul into this picture as he does with all of his pictures, so I can always appreciate him being recognized for that.  Apart from that though, this film has nothing else to offer.

I honestly do not know what the hoopla surrounding it is all about. Somehow it earned $481.8 million worldwide and now I wonder what people told their friends when saying to them, “You must see this movie.  It has the best…”.  Battle scene?  Maybe that is all there is to it.  My advice?  If you saw Pearl Harbor, skip it.  If you did not see Pearl Harbor, skip both of them.  Neither is worth it.  However, if you want to see the opening battle scene, rent the movie, just make sure to press eject when you reach the 28:30 mark on your DVD player.

#30 Apocalypse Now (1979)

Captain Benjamin J. Willard (Martin Sheen) is given secret orders to find Colonel Walter E. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) in the remote jungles of Cambodia and assassinate him.  Kurtz, a member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, is believed to have gone insane and is now commanding his own army made up of indigenous Vietnamese people.  Willard boards a Navy Patrol Boat assigned to take him into Cambodia with four other men in his crew.  Along the way, they encounter fellow American soldiers and engage in battle with the Vietnamese.  Once Willard reaches his destination, he realizes this mission is more than he bargained for and understands why the first man they sent out to do this job never came back.

I expected more from this film.  I expected it to be dark, intense, and extremely disturbing.  “Apocalypse” means, “universal or widespread destruction or disaster,” like that of a nuclear war.  I wanted to be disturbed.  I wanted to still be thinking about it today.  I wanted a nightmare.  None of that occurred.  By the time I ejected the DVD from my computer, Apocalypse Now was the last thing on my mind.

Maybe my expectations were too high.  Maybe I have seen one too many sadistic Vietnam War films and my threshold for disturbing content is higher than most average folk.  I do not want to give the impression that this is a light-hearted war film because it is not.  There is extensive blood shed, violence, and gritty war scenes.  The scenery and special effects in this film is the best I have seen in a long time.  I give this film full credit for its cinematic brilliance that kept me in awe, but when it comes to living up to the word “apocalypse,” that just did not happen.

Due to its strenuous circumstances, it is as if this is the film that should have never been or that God never intended to be created.  Filming began in March of 1976.  Director Francis Ford Coppola flew his family to Manila, where filming would take place, to live there during the five-month shoot.  In May, Typhoon Olga hit, wrecking sets and delaying production. In June, Brando showed up on set grossly overweight and unable to take part in the scenes Coppola planned for him.  By December, Coppola had viewed the raw footage and was unhappy with what he saw.  Filming resumed in early 1977, but was delayed again in March when Sheen suffered a heart attack.  Finally by May, filming wrapped.  However, it took another two years before the film was released to finalize the sound, narration, film edits, and ending of the movie.  At one point, Coppola is cited as saying to his wife, “there is only about a 20 percent chance I can pull the film off.”

In my opinion, when something needs to be that worked on and that toiled over, it is not what was intended.  Coppola was working against the universe and inflicting his own will upon God.  Much of the fame surrounding this film comes from its long and difficult production.  If Coppola had asked United Artists for one more delay in its release, I am not sure that would have been granted.  He did screen an unfinished version of the film at the Cannes Film Festival in 1979 and while it was met with applause, there were scoffs when it won the Palme d’Or for Best Film after that showing.

Upon its theatrical opening, it did well financially and critically.  In Ebert’s opinion it is, “the best Vietnam War film, one of the greatest of all films, because it pushes beyond the others, into the dark places of the soul.  It is not about war so much as about how war reveals truths we would be happy never to discover.”  I agree, Apocalypse Now is not about war.  Coppola never meant for it to be about war.  He wanted it to be about human mental agony, or the “truths”  that come out of the dark crevices of our soul.  I saw him try to do that, but he never achieved it.  He tried too hard and overshot his mark.  Like I said, when someone needs to put so much struggle and effort toward something, it probably was not meant to be and won’t ever turn out as they had wanted.

One bright and shining aspect of this film is its cinematography.  Since filming took place in the Philippines, the sets are real, along with the people and animals.  The camera work, including the angles and various shots, captures the full scenery and physical struggles of war.  The film opens with transposed images where we see Sheen’s face in the background and during the opening scenes, the camera takes the viewer all over the place with its various angles and shots.  I knew from the beginning that cinematically, the filmmakers were trying to wow audiences and I can attest to the fact that it worked on me.  And seeing how it won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography, it obviously worked on the Academy as well.

One last jab at the film falls on the casting of Martin Sheen.  Coppola originally planned to use Harvey Keitel as Willard, however within a few days of shooting, Coppola realized he did not fit.  Coppola had admired Sheen ever since he saw his screen test for Michael in The Godfather and was able to convince him to take the part.  I am in full agreeance that Keitel would not have been a good fit.  Willard was a passive man and Keitel is not, nor do I believe he can play one.  Sheen did a good job with the passivity, but other than that he did nothing for me.  I am not sure who would have been a good fit.  Sheen just seemed a little dated and out of his element in the midst of war.  A younger, pretty-boy type would have suited me better.

I invite you to watch the film for yourself and form your own opinion.  I am a fan of all films based on the Vietnam War, so I am happy I finally watched Apocalypse Now.  It did not meet my expectations, nor did it stand out as one of the best war films I have ever seen.  It is different from other films I have seen on the Vietnam War, but in this instance, different does not mean better.  Coppola put too much effort into this project and wasted four years of first-rate talent on a subpar film.

#23 The Grapes of Wrath (1940)

Having just served four years in prison for homicide, Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) is paroled and heading back to his family’s farm in Oklahoma.  Along the way, he runs into Jim Casy (John Carradine), an ex-preacher from his hometown.  When the two arrive at the farm, the family is gone.  Tom’s old friend Muley tells him all the families were kicked out of their farms by the deed holders of the land and they are heading to California to find work picking fruit.  Tom and Jim find Tom’s family and they all set off for California.  With little money for food or gas, they slowly make their way to California only to find that the jobs don’t pay nearly enough to live off of and the conditions are worse than that.  It is one struggle after another for the Joad family and no one, especially the local law enforcement, have anything to offer them towards that brighter future they were anticipating.

The Grapes of Wrath can be described in one sentence: An Oklahoma family’s grueling journey to California.  I was surprised how well it kept my attention considering the minimal action and events within the plot.  There is death, violence, murder, suspenseful moments, etc., but most of the film revolves around the trek to California and what happens to the Joads when they get there.  The wagon shares as many scenes in the film as Henry Fonda does.

Screenplay writer Nunnally Johnson hooks the viewer from the beginning by bonding audiences with the main characters.  Tom Joad, an ex-con in search of his family, appears first on-screen.  Next comes the ex-preacher, Jim Casy.  As they set off on their search, I joined in, acquainting myself with Tom and Jim.  When Tom learns his family is gone, I wanted to know where they went.  After they left for California and I met the rest of the Joad family, I wanted to know what happened on their trek?  Did they have enough money to make it to California?  If they reached their destination, did they find work?  Johnson had me wanting more and made it near impossible for me to take my eyes off the screen.

The actors played a large role in my captivation; Fonda specifically.  His talent and demeanor stood out significantly more to me than it did in 12 Angry Men.  I really enjoyed the way he spoke, carried himself, and presented the character of Tom Joad.  The man we meet in the beginning is hardened by his prison time and I was not sure what to expect behavior-wise, but it only takes a short time to see Tom’s tender heart and responsible nature.  He is not a violent, hot-headed man out to make trouble; he is a man of his word who reacts too quickly at times when he is defending something he believes in.  Fonda displayed those traits perfectly and I am shocked he did not win the Oscar for his portrayal.

John Carradine played another interesting character and the mystery behind him held my attention.  Being an ex-preacher, I wondered whether he still had his faith, whether he still acted holy, and what his purpose was in life now.  Carradine did an excellent job playing Jim and the only thing that tripped me up was him saying in the beginning he had baptized Tom.  Fonda and Carradine looked to be the exact same age and in fact, Fonda was a year older than Carradine in real life.  But, I tried to move past that and focus on the story in front of me.

The story is based on the novel of the same name written by John Steinbeck.  The first half of the movie holds true to the book, but the second half deviates greatly.  Some of the material in the book was too controversial and the ending is a lot more devastating than what the movie depicts.  There was concern over Steinbeck’s political references as well, so Nunnally toned down a majority of those.  I don’t like when a screenplay writer changes several aspects of movie based off of a book, but in this case I understand.  The threat of communism was underway and World War II was going on.   The film industry was extremely sensitive when it came to controversial topics and censorship was a major force behind the omission of certain scenes and topics.  Director John Ford could either make the changes or stop production and he made the best choice possible. Also, the American people needed a message of hope.  They were still rebounding from the Great Depression and now a second World War was underway.  If Ford had gone with Steinbeck’s ending, audiences would have left the theater worse off than when they entered.

John Ford won the Academy Award for Directing. In the beginning, when Tom finds his family, they all greet him with handshakes.  The only people who run up and hug him are the two young children.  I thought it strange that even his own mother did not hug him, but I assumed that was how it was in Oklahoma and I was not supposed to focus on that.  However, in the end when Tom and Ma are speaking, she says something like, “I know we are not the kissing family” and then she kisses him.  I realized the handshakes were intentional and the intimacy we see amongst families was supposed to be non-existent with the Joads.  The actors illustrate that so lucidly through their character’s interactions.  I credit Ford’s directing talent with that asset and I also give him credit for arranging the scenes and actors so beautifully throughout the film.

This movie is worth watching.  It is very simple and straight to the point.  Sometimes the journey gets a little arduous for the viewer, but something minor always happens that fires up the interest in it again.  I had actually given myself the option of taking a nap if the movie put me to sleep.  That never happened because I found it impossible to close my eyes.  I did not want to miss a minute. And now my only lingering question is, did Led Zeppelin get the idea for their song, “Going to California,” from The Grapes of Wrath?

 

#69 Tootsie (1982)

Struggling actor Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) earned himself a bad rap in show business and now must go to any length to get a job.  He agrees to help his friend Sandy (Teri Garr) audition for a role on a soap opera.  When she does not get the part, Michael secretly goes back to the audition, dressed as a woman, and tries out for the role.  He gets the part, but only him, his roommate Jeff (Bill Murray) and his agent George Fields (Sydney Pollack) know he is the real “Dorothy Michaels.”  Though he only did it to earn $8,000 so he could put on a play of his own, he soon finds himself leading a double life.  He has the rest of the cast, including his costar who he is falling in love with, Julie Nichols (Jessica Lange), believing he is Dorothy, he has men falling in love with him, and he has his friend Sandy who he can never let know that he is Dorothy and stole her role.  So, when he is offered a permanent position on the soap opera, he must choose between continuing his double life with the job or going back to his normal life without the fame.

I watched this two days ago.  Yesterday, I asked a few family members the one question that was on my mind since finishing this film, “How is this any different from Mrs. Doubtfire?”  In Mrs. Doubtfire, Robin Williams plays a father who dresses as an elderly, female, British nanny to spend time with his children.  My cousin reminded me that Mrs. Doubtfire has a PG rating while Tootsie is intended for adult audiences.  Upon hearing that, I then changed the word “different” in my question to “better.”  One person said it was the actors, stating Hoffman trumps Williams.  Another family member said the story was deeper and more profound in Tootsie.  And the third family member based it on the fact that Tootsie preceded Mrs. Doubtfire (released in 1993), which is why Tootsie made the top 100 list.  I find myself baffled as to why it is on the list at all.

Don’t misinterpret what I am saying here.  I enjoy romantic comedies, especially when they are on this list.  It is such a nice break from the more serious, dramatic films where I really need to pay attention.  And Tootsie is no exception.  It is funny, it has a star-studded cast, and the plot is very clever, but I do not know what makes it stand out as one of the top 100.  Ebert wrote that, “Tootsie is the kind of movie with a capital M that they used to make in the 1940s, when they weren’t afraid to mix up absurdity with seriousness, social comment with farce, and a little heartfelt tenderness right in there with the laughs.”  Ebert felt the uniqueness of it, for the time it was released, but all I see is the similarities it has to Mrs. Doubtfire and various TV shows that have played off the male cross-dresser idea.  Maybe that is why I do not see anything special about it.

Another factor could be that though I admire Hoffman for his diversity and acting abilities, he does not really trump any other actor for me.  I like Williams just as much as I like Hoffman.  And I like DeNiro better than either one of them, but I digress.  Hoffman knows his characters.  He watched the film La Cage aux Folles (about male transvestites) over and over again to study for his role.  I have nothing negative to say about his performance, but it did not increase my admiration for him, nor did it spark an interest to watch more of his films.  He is good at what he does and now we know he can put on a good female performance as well.

My favorite character was Sandy, played by Teri Garr.  Sandy is a terribly neurotic, emotionally dependent, basket-case.  I loved the character and I loved Garr’s performance.  I felt her performance deserved the Academy Award, however it was Jessica Lange that earned the Best Supporting Actress Award for her role as Julie.  I honestly can not name one reason she deserved it.  Julie was a rather meek woman and it did not appear as though the part would have required much study or serious acting.  In contrast, Garr had to overreact to slight provocations, use her body to express emotions, and go beyond what seemed to be her natural self.  If the Awards were based on what role demanded more work and talent, I’d say Garr should have won by a landslide, but I suppose that is why I am not a member of the Academy voting party.

The plot was good.  I’d assume it was the first of its kind when released in 1982. Tootsie was the highest grossing comedy of 1982.  Having already seen similar plots, I was not shocked or surprised by anything.  I thoroughly enjoyed the way Hoffman’s character eventually reveals himself, though I had a very hard time following what he was saying in that scene.  And the ending, though it was what I expected, left a certain character high and dry.  That person and what happened to him/her was never even considered.  It struck me as odd because most of the romantic comedies I watch today do put a close to all loose ends, especially the type I am referring to.  It seems like an error on the part of the screenplay writer in my opinion.

I was reminded that the plot carried an important message about self-esteem.  Michael is down on his luck in the beginning of the film.  No one will hire him.  All he wants is a job to earn some money and when he finally lands this role, he is wanted.  He has his purpose back and the fact that he needs to dress as a woman does not bother him.  But then he discovers he kind of liked his old life better and he prefers to be himself versus this other “character.”  It takes a lot of work to be someone he is not and in the process, he is hurting those he cares the most about. Though the ending revolves primarily around the romance, there is a moral to the plot as a whole and that does add favorable points to it.

If you are seeking a light-hearted, Mrs. Doubtfire-like comedy for adults, this is it.  If you want an Oscar-worthy film watching experience, I’d suggest watching a different film.    A good cast, a good plot, a few laughs, but not top 100 material.  In the cross-dressing genre of film, Williams is the trump card in my deck.

#39 Dr. Strangelove (1964)

USAF General Jack Ripper (Sterling Hayden), who has a paranoid delusion that the Communists are trying to poison American’s bodily fluids using water fluoridation, deploys a nuclear attack on Russia without informing his superiors or the President of the United States.  Group Captain Lionel Mandrake (Peter Sellers), who issued the attack, tries to stop it once he realizes what he has done, but Ripper refuses to give him the code and locks down the entire base.  In the Pentagon War Room, General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) informs President Merkin Muffley (Sellers) of the series of events.  Muffley invites Russian Ambassador, Alexei de Sadeski (Peter Bull), to the War Room and together they call Soviet Premier Dmitiri Kisov to tell him about the possible attack.  Sadeski informs them of the doomsday device, which will destroy all human life if activated by a nuclear attack.  Dr. Strangelove (Sellers) confirms this fact and that the nuclear bomb could set it off.  With time running out, a B-52 filled with two nuclear bombs headed straight for Russia,  and General Ripper unwilling to give up the code to reverse the order,  the end of the world may be right around the corner.

Satire at its finest.  Director Stanley Kubrick originally planned to make this a dramatic film, but once he began writing the screenplay, he noticed the central themes oozed with absurdity and humor.  He would have been forced to leave out what he called “the heart of the scenes” to keep it from being funny.  Thus, he decided to make it a black comedy and brought in satirical writer Terry Southern to help him with the screenplay.  Dr. Strangelove is based on the book Red Alert by Peter George (who also helped write the screenplay) about the threat of nuclear war and the irrationally simple way it can be triggered.  The screenplay follows a similar story line, adding in Dr. Strangelove and the idea of the doomsday machine.  It is an inane plot and wouldn’t have worked any other way.

After watching Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange, I never expected a comedy from Kubrick, but he is a man of many talents.  The beauty of Dr. Strangelove is that the humor is not over-the-top.  When dealing with paranoia and absurd reactions, over-the-top humor seems to be the chosen avenue for many directors.  Kubrick opted for the darker path laden with subtle, intelligent humor.  He could have chosen to leave out the funny scenes and lines because the story itself is comical.  A US General issues a bomb attack with no possible way of diverting it, which could potentially end up triggering a device that will destroy Earth as we know it.  It played on people’s preposterous fear of nuclear attack at the time and watching it today makes it even funnier.

Though the plot is reminiscent of the Cold War, it mainly hones in on the theory of mutual assured destruction (MAD), which asserts that each side is to avoid nuclear war on the basis that it could end in catastrophic disaster regardless of who won.  Herman Kahn, a futurist, came up with the “doomsday device” theory, stating there already were enough nuclear weapons between the two sides to destroy the Earth and all its people.  I find all the facts extremely interesting because Kubrick integrated them into the plot almost ad nauseam and it looks so ridiculous.  We, as humans, look ridiculous with our fears, backward policies, and theories of how things are or should be.  But it is so ridiculous that it is funny and a good laugh about ourselves is never a bad thing.

Onto the acting, which has a few stories of its own.  First off, Peter Sellers is amazing and definitely plays the funniest characters.  The only way Columbia Pictures agreed to finance the film was if Sellers played four characters.  He ended up only playing the three mentioned in the synopsis, but that was what he preferred.  As the president, his interactions with the Russian Premier are classic.  He copied his mannerisms for that role from former Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson.  As Captain Mandrake, he mimicked the superiors he had when he served in the RAF.  He was a nervous twit in my opinion and I surely would not want anyone like him serving my country.  And as Dr. Strangelove, he took a few different scientific figures and combined them, bringing to life the funniest character in the movie.  To describe him in one word, nutty.  Sellers was able to improvise with all his characters and one such example is the quirk he attributes to Strangelove where he can’t seem to help his right hand from spontaneously deviating into a nazi salute.

Kubrick tricked George C. Scott into playing Turgidson much more flamboyant than he ever would have wanted.  He would tell Scott they were doing “practice” takes and ask him to do an exaggerated version of his character.  In reality, he used those takes in the final movie.  Scott swore he would never work with Kubrick again.  In my opinion, he needs to thank Scott for evoking one of the greatest performances of his life.  Turgidson epitomized my idea of a US Army General and was satirical perfection.  Sellers and Scott received top billing, but a couple other honorable mentions are Slim Pickens and James Earl Jones, both of whom play soldiers on the B-52.  Pickens was never told the film was a comedy.  Kubrick wanted him to play it “straight.”  Pickens, however, did not get upset with Kubrick for his trickery as Scott did because it was his role as Major T.J. “King” Kong that bumped up his career and his pay checks.

This is the best black comedy I have ever seen.  Until writing this review, I had never realized the diversity of Kubrick’s pictures.  I still have three to go on this list – Spartacus, an American historical drama; 2001: A Space Odyssey, a science fiction film; and A Clockwork Orange, a satirical sci-fi film.  And let’s not forget his work on Lolita, a comedy drama, The Shining, a horror film, and Full Metal Jacket, a war film.  He does have a certain style about him, but not as glaringly obvious as Alfred Hitchcock or Quentin Tarantino.  Kubrick is versatile and extremely creative, allowing for a more diverse array of films in his vault.

I highly recommend this film for those of you looking for a more intelligent laugh.  You do not need to know anything about nuclear bombs or the Cold War to appreciate the humor; it is just not what I’d call “silly” humor like that of Naked Gun or Hot Shots.  I’d almost go so far as call this film “cute” because for some reason I can hear my dad saying that if he were to describe this film.  And when I think back to President Muffley and Premier Kisov bantering about never calling one another just to say hello, cute is just the word to fit the bill.

#44 The Philadelphia Story (1940)

Socialite Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn) is getting ready to marry her second husband, George Kittredge (John Howard).  Spy magazine publisher Sidney Kidd is dying to get the inside scoop on the wedding and blackmails Dexter Haven (Cary Grant), Tracy’s first husband, to take reporter Macaulay “Mike” Connor (James Stewart) and photographer Liz Imbrie (Ruth Hussey) into the Lord home.  Though Tracy is none too crazy about Dexter, her mother and sister are and agree to let him and his guests in.  After discovering Mike is a reporter, Tracy tries to trick him into thinking her family is something they are not.  Yet, she comes to see the good in Mike and finds herself caught between her ex-husband, her future husband, and a reporter right before her wedding day.

When a director puts Hepburn, Grant, and Stewart in a movie together, chances are he is going to come out with a blockbuster regardless of what the plot is.  And that is exactly what Director George Cukor got, except that Hepburn was the acting force behind the film.  She had starred in the play on Broadway and after securing the play rights from Howard Hughes, she sold them to MGM’s Louis B. Mayer in the hopes of improving her label in Hollywood, which at the time was “box office poison.”  She convinced Mayer to let her pick out the director, producer, screenwriter, and cast.  Originally, she wanted Clark Gable as Dexter and Spencer Tracy as Connor, but they were busy with other projects, so she cast Grant and Stewart as her leading men.  Within six weeks of its theatrical release, it broke a box office record at the Radio City Music Hall by taking in $600,000.  And Hepburn scored her first success after a series of flops.

The acting is superb and the story line is intrinsically creative.  Not only is there an ex-husband and a fiance to contend with, but a reporter is also thrown into the mix.  And to make matters worse, that reporter has an admirer of his own – the photographer.  The web of love ends up being tangled in a few places and creates a good amount of humorous chaos.  I never felt anxious over the chaos; it was just the right amount to elicit a little laughter and more than a few smiles.  Hepburn played the funniest character, both in her deportment and the lines she delivered.  Tracy is a rich socialite interested solely in her own wants and needs.  Some of her humor is intentional while the rest comes from her naivety.  I was awestruck by Hepburn’s beauty every time she appeared on-screen and the way she portrayed Tracy added tenfold to her appeal.

Grant and Stewart both had their moments as well.  Grant played the honest, reasonable male, while Stewart was back to playing a young, naive man quite like that which he played in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  Only this time he has a journalism edge to him, meaning he is a bit more cunning and willing to cut people down to size if he has to.  I really felt the connection between Hepburn and Grant, however I did not feel it as much between her and Stewart.  I believe, though, that was an intentional disconnect and it did not detract from the movie in any way.  Grant and Stewart, on the other hand, played off of each other nicely, especially since their characteristics contrasted one another.  One of my favorite scenes is when a very drunk Mike goes to Dexter’s house late at night and keeps asking if it is okay if he takes a drink from his own bottle of liquor.  It is an extreme example of their contrast and a very funny one at that.

Stewart won the Academy Award for his performance and though he is my favorite actor, this is not one of my favorite performances of his.  He had no intention of winning and when he did, he felt the Academy gave him the award as compensation for not winning it for his role in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  I am going to have to agree with him.  He is an outstanding actor, so he did a fine job as Mike Connor, but nothing Oscar-worthy.  I took a greater liking to Grant and Hepburn’s performances.  I am shocked Ginger Rogers beat out Hepburn as Best Actress.  Rogers may have been light on her toes, but Hepburn was the one with the acting skills.  Grant lost the nomination to Stewart, possibly because he did spend more time in the background, but that does not mean his performance was lacking.  He had the charm and tenderness that Stewart lacked in his role, thus he appeared more favorable in my eyes.

Donald Ogden Stewart, a friend of The Philadelphia Story playwright Philip Barry, won the only other Academy Award this film received for Best Writing, Screenplay.  As I mentioned, the plot is intrinsically creative and kept me guessing the entire time.  By the time I reached the end, I had not predicted the outcome.  I am sure a few of you will if you watch this film, but it is not as glaringly obvious as most romantic comedies make it today.  Again though, it really is the actors that make this film what it is.  Donald Stewart wrote a superb screenplay, but without the proper delivery of lines or essential expressions made by the actors, this film never would have kept my interest the way it did. 

Looking back, I am going to have to recommend this movie for two specific reasons.  One, the cast.  That was a give-in.  And the other, its unpredictability.  It is one of the only cleverly tangled, romantic comedies with an unanticipated ending  I have ever seen.  I wish romantic comedies today looked more like this than Two Weeks Notice or The Wedding Planner.  I don’t want to know the ending within the first ten minutes.  With The Philadelphia Story, I still had not predicted the ending when the final ten minutes began.  Hepburn picked the perfect cast and Donald Stewart picked the perfect ending, leaving me with a beaming smile at the close of the film.

#29 Double Indemnity (1944)

Insurance salesman Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) stumbles into his office late one night and records a confession for his boss, Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson). His confession is then shown as a flashback, beginning when Walter first met Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck).  He went to her house to renew her husband’s automobile insurance and was immediately taken by her beauty.  Phyllis later convinces Walter to let her take out a life insurance policy on her husband and to help her kill him, making it look accidental.  Though Walter thought he devised the perfect plan, Keyes has a nagging feeling that Phyllis is to blame for the death.  Walter, wanting to protect his love, tries to sway Keyes away from that idea, but Walter soon realizes he too is in a web of lies and his only way out may be to “take care of” the situation himself.

A classic tale of man falls for married woman and married woman uses him to kill husband.  I have seen this story before and was not impressed.  Films retell stories all the time, so that is not what offended me.  I will give any movie a chance, but this one had nothing special about it.  The acting didn’t do it for me, the twists didn’t do it for me, and neither did the screenplay.  I knew I had watched a Billy Wilder film previously on this list, Sunset Boulevard, and I did not like that one either.  So, maybe I am averse to Wilder’s style.  Whatever it is, I did not enjoy this movie.

Fred MacMurray irks me.  Something about his look, his talk, and the way he kept saying “baby” over and over again.  I know that is attributed to his character, but I just do not see him as the right fit for this role.  He looks too wholesome to me for this role, which is funny because the only other role I have seen him in is The Apartment playing a man cheating on his wife.  Maybe the directors saw something evil in him that I did not see, but they needed a man with more sex appeal to play Walter.  Due to the controversial content of the film, Wilder had a hard time finding anyone to play Walter.  Every actor he approached except MacMurray turned down the role and even MacMurray gave Wilder a hard time.  It was not because of his morals, but because he did not feel qualified to play the “bad guy.”  He told Wilder, “You’re making the biggest mistake of your life!,” and I do agree.

Barbara Stanwyck was much more believable in her role.  She was a pretty blond who knew seduction and knew how to play a woman out to get what she wanted.  She was the highest paid actress at the time, so Wilder hit it big with her.  I would need to see more films she starred in to make a sound judgement on her acting.  She did a fine job in this film, but nothing that had me in awe or took my breath away.  My favorite performance came from Edward Robinson.  I take a liking to the fumbling, nitwit bosses in films.  Keyes had intelligence and he knew what he was talking about.  Robinson did a superb job playing the part and he was the only character I truly enjoyed watching on-screen.

Critics praised Double Indemnity as an “original thriller.”  Maybe I have been watching too many Hitchcock films, but I never felt one chill nor one thrill while watching this movie.  I would not even associate it with the word thriller, except that IMDB.com does so I put it in that category.  Never once was I on the edge of my seat, nor did I really wonder what would happen next.  I knew Walter was alive in the end because he was telling the story and I knew some sort of shootout occurred because he was shot.   I did not take a liking to the characters, so it was hard to care what happened to them.  And it being a film noir, I knew the ending would not be happy.  I expected death in the end and that reduced this film’s shock value to zero.

I felt like I was just going through the motions with the plot since it was a story I had seen before.  I know at the time of its release, it was novel, but for my generation, we have seen this tale in movies, television shows, and the national news.  There is nothing shocking about it anymore.  It is not just that I have seen this tale before, but that there was nothing added to it that caught my attention.  It was too basic for me; too predictable.  I have only seen two Wilder films, but I do believe his writing style is not to my liking and that is why I do not enjoy his films.  I may also be opposed to the film noir style.  Neither the Wilder nor the film noir styles draw me in.  I can get through the films without pulling my hair out because they are simple and easy to follow, but they leave me with nothing in the end.

I personally would take a pass on this film.  It is mainly my adversity to Wilder’s style and the lack of character appeal that voices that opinion.  And though the film noir style led to some break through cinematic ideas, it does nothing to make the plot enticing or the story worth watching.  MacMurray should have stuck to his good ol’ boy role because when it comes to playing a criminal, Baby, he ain’t got nothing to show for it.

#38 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

Three men set off to the Sierra Madre mountains to find gold.  Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) and Curtin (Tim Holt) are two working men in need of money and Howard (Walter Huston) is an old man they invite along who knows what gold looks like.  Besides the bandits they need to watch out for while in the mountains, the real enemy appears once the men find gold and the greed emerges.  Dobbs sanity begins to wane and his trust goes right along with it.  One day, Howard saves the life of a young villager and is asked to stay with the locals for a week.  He entrusts Dobbs and Curtin with his share of the gold.  Now with all the gold at their fingertips, the two are soon at each other’s throats and only one will survive in the end.

To my surprise, this was an intellectually deep movie with insightful moral and ethical lessons.  I would not expect that with a western, however this film was based on a book written in 1927 and it stayed pretty true to the book’s plot and tone.  Also, it did not make it to number 38 on A.F.I.’s list for no reason.  I can agree with its placement because it is much more than a shoot-em-up western.  It is a lesson in how far we are willing to go for our own needs at the cost of others and how far we can push our conscience before it starts pushing us back.

This movie is not about searching for gold; the gold is found early on.  This movie is not about fighting with the Mexican bandits; the Federales handle the bandits just as they did in the 1920s after the Mexican Revolution.  Neither is it about riding around on horses nor bingeing on liquor in a saloon.  This movie is about human ethics.  The theme is greed and the characters are its victim.  With it comes distrust, sleepless nights, warped thoughts, and murder.  Director John Huston wrote the screenplay and won the Academy Award for it.  It is one of the deepest, darkest plots I have encountered on the list and I was blown away.

This was one of the first Hollywood films shot almost entirely outside of the United States, mainly in Durango and Mexico.  To make it believable, Huston wanted to shoot on location.  The true nature of the sets added to the realism of the film.  I doubted the realism at first because in one of the opening scenes, there is a bar brawl with Dobbs and Curtin versus a former employer who owes them money.  The punches were so fake and the use of stunt doubles was disgustingly obvious that I was laughing throughout the entire scene.  But once the trio goes to Mexico, everything from the landscape, to the natives, to the donkeys themselves looked Spanish.  I wonder if real gold was used.  I would assume the answer is yes.

The actors added to the realism by displaying true emotions and changing their demeanor as the hunt for gold waged on.  Humphrey Bogart is an actor that “has me at hello.”  This is only the second film of his I’ve seen, but I took to him immediately just as I did in Casablanca.  Before watching the movie, I read on the DVD cover that this was Tim Holt’s breakthrough role, so I had good expectations of him.  And Walter Huston was the only one of the three to win an Academy Award for his portrayal.  All three men reveal themselves and their character early on.  You can pretty much tell who is going to go in what direction in terms of morals and ethical obligations.  Watching them get deeper and deeper into character is the fascinating part.

Dobbs has the darkest disposition and his descent into the other realm, so to speak, is brilliant.  Later in the movie, he speaks to his conscience and we get to hear the battle going on between his ears.  What kept me captivated was knowing he had an evil side, but not knowing how far he’d really go.  Curtin is the naive, young man looking to make a little cash.  With the naivety and intelligence he displays, I doubted he’d go too far over the deep end, but that was not a guarantee.  And Howard, being the wise old man he is, speaks the truth from the beginning and gains the audiences trust immediately.  Yet, he sometimes speaks too much truth and again, you never know how far he will go to hold onto his share.  It is that “you never know” quality about each character that kept me glued to the screen.  Greed is an insidious monster and it is unbelievable what it can get people to do.  This movie and the characters are a prime example of that.

I just looked at Ebert’s review and he too said, “The movie has never really been about gold, but about character…”  I was not hooked from the beginning, but as I kept watching and realized it had little to do with finding treasure in the Sierra Madre, I could not pull myself away from the screen.  I highly recommend this film.  The plot will suck you in, the characters will rip your heart out, and the greed will remind you of at least one episode in your life, if not get you thinking about what you would do in their situation and which man you identify with most.

#66 Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Set in 1936, archeology professor Indiana “Indy” Jones (Harrison Ford) is asked to help the United States Army locate the Ark of the Covenant in Egypt before the Nazis find it.  The Ark, which is said to contain pieces of the Ten Commandments, would bring the Nazis supreme power.  After traveling to Nepal to find the man who holds the Staff of Ra, the key to finding the Ark, he joins forces with the man’s daughter, and his ex-lover, Marion (Karen Allen).  They travel to Cairo where Indy’s friend Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) quickly helps them locate the Ark.  The hard part, however, is getting the Ark past his rival, archeologist Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman), and the gang of Nazi soldiers he is working with.

This movie was everything I thought it was going to be.  I kept having déjà vu.  The scenes looked so familiar, but I had never seen it before yesterday.  What I have seen is the Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular show at Disneyworld’s Hollywood Studios a good ten times and now that I watched the movie, I can say they do a great job replicating the action sequences.  I went into the movie thinking it was going to be one big action/adventure flick and nothing else, but I was pleasantly surprised.   There is romance and history, as well as humor and drama.  And I cannot forget to mention the great theme song, talented cast, and thrilling special effects.  I am glad I gave it the night to soak in because this morning I woke up with an even greater appreciation for the film and the biggest urge to rent Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.    

I had no idea these films were based on historic events, but it makes sense being that Indiana Jones is an archeologist.  Biblical references, Egyptian mythology, and Nazi culture are profiled and used in the plot.  I love history and when it is used within a story line, it makes the story appear more real and not as far-fetched.  That in and of itself is funny because most of the things in this film probably could and never will happen, especially the final scene in Egypt, but it does not feel that way while watching the movie.  It is believable and I think it has to do with the use of historical occurrences.  Don’t worry, however, if you are unfamiliar with the events I mentioned.  Everything is well explained and there is nothing crucial you need to know about world history before watching this film. 

Speaking of Indy, Harrison Ford was sensational in the lead.  I read that Tom Selleck was offered the role, but luckily he was too busy with his television show Magnum P.I. and director Steven Spielberg was able to convince producer George Lucas to cast Ford.  He had the perfect agility, magnitude, and sex appeal to play Indy, as well as the serious and not-so-serious side s he needed.  He was an action hero with personality and intelligence, a far cry from the Steven Segal and Jean Claude Van Damme type character.  He did more than just fight bad guys; he solved mysteries, taught college classes, broke through ancient walls, and managed to get his ex-lover to fall in love with him all over again.  I even started thinking of Indy as a real-life super hero.  He had no super human powers, but the way he could take out a gang of Nazi operatives and escape a pit of asps without getting bit astounded me. 

Karen Allen in the role of Marion, Indy’s ex-lover, knew how to play her men.  She came off strong in the beginning, slapping Indy and telling the Nazis where to stick it, but by the time they reached Egypt she was dressed in a white gown and playing the damsel in distress.  When it came to her relationship with Indy, she softened up pretty quickly, but she tried to hold her own against the Nazis while still maintaining a lady-like essence.  The only movie I had ever seen Allen in was Scrooged.  I enjoyed watching a lesser known actress in the lead, especially one that I did not find stunningly beautiful.  It helped me to focus on her role in the film and to enjoy the dynamics between her and Ford.  I hope her role carried over to the sequels because they are a great team. 

The entire cast was cleverly composed, both in terms of backgrounds and talent.  I assume they worked, lived, ate, slept, and played together while filming because their bonds were clearly displayed through their relationships and interactions.  Just as there were several fragments of history represented, there were also several nationalities spoken for amongst the cast.  Indy’s nemesis was French, the Nazis were German, Indy and Marion were American, and I am not sure where Sallah was supposed to be from, but John-Rhys Davies is British.  In a way, when so many nations are represented, it is as if we are all one.  As if there are no nationalities; we are just humans from one God.  I have never thought about this while watching a movie, but it makes for a less complicated plot and fewer distractions while watching the film.  Maybe it just came to mind because the last film I watched and reviewed, In the Heat of the Night, had everything to do with race and nothing to do with oneness. 

For 1981, the special effects were awesome.  Actually, I was more blown away by the sets and action sequences at first, but when it comes down to those factors and the final scene in Egypt, I pick the final scene.  I do not want to reveal too much about the ending, but let me say it involves melting faces, an exploding head, and ghosts and goblins of all kind.  All of the Egypt scenes were filmed in the African country Tunisia and very few Hollywood sets were used.  The snakes and tarantulas they used were real and Ford did most of his own stunts and partook in all the fight scenes.  The action sequences are beautifully choreographed and reminded me of a video game.  And no matter who you are, you will recognize the Indiana Jones theme song with its uplifting tone and keep-on-trucking beat.  I actually picked this movie to watch next because I could not get the theme song out of my head.

Raiders of the Lost Ark was the top-grossing film of 1981 and remains one of the top-grossing films of all time.  Three sequels, 15 video games, and a television show succeeded this film.  It won four Academy Awards (Art Direction, Sound, Film Editing,and Visual Effects) and was honored with a Special Achievements Academy Award for Sound Effects Editing.  That is what you get when you combine Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford.  It really is so much more than just your average action/adventure flick.  If you had asked me last night if I was going to watch the next one in the series, I would have said no.  I am glad, however, that you did not ask me because I had the night to sleep on it and this is my final answer: Yes.  So, catch up and watch this one.  That way you won’t fall behind when we watch the rest.