Nerdy perfection

I have nothing... just read this. It's kind funny when you're a perfectionist and cool if you're a nerd.

http://permanentplastichelmet.com/2011/07/05/stanley-kubricks-letter-to-projectionists-regarding-screening-barry-lyndon/

Love the story, love the movie ... hate the acting

The Searchers (1956)

Adam’s rating: ★★★ (out of 5)

Director: John Ford

Rated: none. 119 min.

No. 96 on AFI 100

No. 12 on AFI 100 reissue

None on IMDB Top 250

Starring: John Wayne, Vera Miles,
Jeffrey Hunter, Ward Bond,
Natalie Wood

"The Searchers": No. 96 on AFI 100 (1998);
No. 12 on AFI 100 (2007)

I’m just going to come out and say it: this might be The Duke’s best western film? But, I think John Wayne’s role in this film is stronger because of his work with legendary director John Ford than any other reason.

I was a big fan of the story. There wasn’t much that needed to be done on a technical aspect because the Western genre is quite simplistic and with the advent of color film, focuses on quality photography of the scenery – and shooting on location in Utah’s Monument Valley makes the scenery top-notch.

The story, to me, was quite unique.

Based on the book by Alan LeMay, “The Searchers” is about Civil War veteran Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) returns to his brother’s home three years after the war when a neighbor’s cattle are stolen as a ploy to drive the men away from their families as they chase after the cattle. When the men discover this plot, they return to find Edwards’ brother’s house on fire and his two youngest girls abducted.

Long story short, Ethan and the girl’s adopted brother, Martin, lead a search party and the two end up searching for the girl for what we are led to believe is years as they eventually find her living among the Indians as an adolescent when she is finally found.

What I like about the story, though, is Edwards’ unstoppable desire to find his niece, avenge deaths and the wrongs done to his brother’s family. The need for justice seems to be the key element in most John Wayne films – and I think that element is at its best in this film.

But the acting is so-so. Granted, it’s not as bad as “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” but I still wasn’t over-the-top impressed. I always feel, when I watch a John Wayne movie, that his acting abilities are mediocre and that he shows up, lumbers through his scenes, delivers his lines and collects the paycheck because he was a big box office draw. That’s great that a bunch of producers made money, but where is the overall quality? It’s believable because he’s typecast as this tough guy, no-nonsense cowboy who doles out justice – but, and I’m going to duck for cover upon saying this, he’s about as big of a joke as an actor as Chuck Norris, who has a penchant for doling out cheesy lines, roundhouse kicks and a crappy show that everyone loves. (By the time you read this, I will be dead -- from trauma sustained as a result of a roundhouse kick to the face a la Texas justice.)

And that is the drawback of John Wayne’s repertoire. Sure, he makes entertaining movies. But where is the quality acting that the likes of his contemporaries were able to produce? I mean, Gary Cooper made quite possibly the best western of all time in “High Noon,” but he was a more accomplished actor branching out into this one genre. And while it would be silly to think of John Wayne branching out because the people that watch his movies don’t want to see him in anything but westerns and war, the branching out is the difference between being a one-dimensional typecast actor who can only do the same role and being regarded as one of the greatest actors of all time.

At the end of the day, the thing you must take away from this film is photography – and capturing the majestic landscape on film is where it’s at. This film used a seldom-used technological advance of the 1950s called VistaVision. Alfred Hitchcock also used this short-lived film for a few of his 1950s films and the process made for a higher resolution picture in the widescreen format. The result is that photography is quite beautiful, especially for the 1950s. Maybe it’s not as beautiful as the vistas and landscape photography in “Days of Heaven,” but the overall picture is crisp and very pretty with the combination of red rocks, blue skies, sunsets, etc. I would actually like to see these films in their blu-ray transfers.

Busy watching movies, busy writing reviews

I'm doing some work, but here are some things I found interesting in the last week -- as it relates to cinema...


An art-house cinema in Omaha that is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting film as art.


And a friend from college interviewing Malcolm McDowell as Warner Bros. prepares to release a 40th anniversary edition of "A Clockwork Orange" on blu-ray.

"Citizen Kane" turns 70

Here's an interesting article on Orson Welles in preparation for "Citizen Kane's" 70th anniversary.

Recreating Hitchcock

I'm terrible at updating this blog.

But, even if it's three years old, I found something worth sharing -- and re-publishing something many other bloggers have published -- again. And that is Vanity Fair's shots of modern actors recreating some of the most famous scenes in Alfred Hitchcock's work.

I love Hitchcock films and many of these images are exciting to see as actors from our generation mimic these frames of celluloid that are ingrained in our minds when we think about Hitch.

So, without further ado ...

One of the greatest movies of all time...

There are a lot of films that aspire to be called "The Greatest Film of All Time" but there is only one that truly lives up to that title. And it's about an androgynous person named Pat Riley.

Based on the old Saturday Night Live skit "It's Pat" from the early 1990s, the film "It's Pat" details the life of this androgynous person named Pat Riley, Pat's life and the comedic attempts of everyone around Pat to figure out whether Pat is a man or a woman.

The story finds Pat trying to establish Pat's self and along the way Pat meet and falls in love with Chris, another androgynous person. But Pat's failures in life and repeated job-jumping forces Chris to dump Pat. Meanwhile, Pat's neighbor Kyle becomes obsessed with learning what Pat's true gender is.

Whether it's Pat falling down the stairs and crushing Pat's nuts ("Awwww, there goes my afternoon snack!") or it's Pat getting a hug and seeming to be very excited only to find out that it really was a banana in Pat's pocket, hilarity ensues at every turning point in the film. Even when Pat finds Pat's self on stage to play with the band Ween. Even one man, who is obsessed with learning whether or not Pat is a man or a woman, goes to great lengths to hack into Pat's computer using every word from A to Z in the dictionary before finding the password.

Movies based on Saturday Night Live skits usually fail in terms of quality -- whether it's plot, acting, comedic writing and lines, the overall story, film techniques or other aesthetics. But "It's Pat" is one of the most beautiful movies you'll ever see based off of an SNL skit that was often times cut because Adam Sandler had a song to sing. The plot is top notch of trying to figure out what gender Pat is and the aesthetically, the film is just beautiful. Granted, it's not like the vistas that Terrence Malick shoots in his films, but it is beautiful nonetheless.

And comedic? HO! My stomach and ribs hurt when I was done watching this movie on account of how hard I was laughing. You can keep your "The Hangover" thank you very much. This is the funniest movie I've ever seen. Bar None.

In closing, just let me say: Happy April Fools Day.

My wife is going to get pissed...

My wife is going to get pissed, because I just found a new film production/distribution company to obsess over.

Thanks to Criterion, I read an article the other day about a film company that Adam Yauch, aka MCA of the Beastie Boys, founded in Tribeca called Oscilloscope Laboratories. Yauch's new project produces and distributes independent films. They have done some music, but mostly its  films that -- from what I've seen -- are think-pieces. I could be completely wrong; there are some dramas in the collection, of which "Howl" is one. But I would classify the common bond of these films as something the audience will learn from.

Yeah, he jokes about how he might be Criterion's competition while delivering his Top 10 favorite films in the Criterion Collection -- yet, says seriously, that he's not their competition.

And realistically he's not.

These films aren't as polished as Criterion; they're not getting the restoration treatments and they're not getting fancy packaging. I can't speculate on all the films -- as I've only seen three so far -- but I'd say the common tie(s) that bind are 1.) these films are educational or informative and 2.) independent in their production.

What sparked this new obsession, though, was picking up "A Film Unfinished" from the library the other day.

I'd been wanting to see the film after reading about it being named as one of the best films of 2010 on one of the year-end best-of lists. The synopsis seemed rather intriguing -- and the film really was.

The basis of the film is that crews of Nazi filmmakers were sent to the Ghetto in Warsaw to film the conditions of Jews there. Some of the conditions were staged as propaganda to show that some Jews lived an extreme life of comfort and that conditions in the Ghetto weren't bad. Other portions of the filming revealed otherwise: starvation, overcrowding, disease, sickness and extreme poverty. It wasn't a very uplifting documentary -- to say the least. However, what was strange about it -- and this is the $1 million question -- is that while the Nazis had a paper trail surrounding a lot of things (including filmmaking), there is no paper trail about why people were sent to Warsaw to film the conditions in the Ghetto or why this film exists.

Nine years after the war, someone found a storage facility in the middle of nowhere filled with stock film and stuff that was never meant to see the light of day when they found four cannisters of film with the title "Das Ghetto" on them and found these rolls of film that are shown in this documentary. There's no soundtrack to the film, no script, just recorded observations of day-to-day life for a short period of time in this neighborhood -- before the deportations to concentration camps started.

Well, upon watching this film, I'd seen the buzzing logo of Oscilloscope before the film started (which I recognized, but couldn't place from where ... thanks to the vast volume of weird movies I view) and while checking out the extra features, I browsed the other available titles. I didn't see much.

So I went to their website ... and jackpot!

I've also seen "Howl," which featured James Franco portraying Allen Ginsberg, in a beautifully crafted film about Ginsberg's time during the obscenity trials surrounding his epic poem juxtaposed with images of him writing the poem, talking about the poem, reading the poem and the stuff going on in his life during the period he wrote the poem -- as well as some trippy animations mixed in of the subject matter of the poem.

Franco delivered a great performance that not many of you will ever see, but the real lasting legacy of this film is really about freedom of speech in the country and who has the authority to label something obscene. Granted, I'm probably not a good judge on that as my judgment on obscene is a little bit more loose than that of others, but...

Finally, and one of the more memorable films I'm sure my wife has actually taken the time to watch with me, is "Dear Zachary ..." Good, god. This film was amazing. It's basically a documentary about this guy who breaks up with his girlfriend and she goes off the fucking deep end and drives from Iowa to Pennsylvania where he's living and -- as all evidence points to her -- kills him.

He's found the next day, face down in his car with five bullet wounds.

She flees to Canada, because she has dual Canadian-American citizenship and upon her arrest, reveals that she is pregnant with this guy's child. After a lengthy child custody battle between this woman and her victim ex-boyfriend's parents, she eventually is tentatively released from police custody, regains custody of her son and eventually jumps into the Atlantic Ocean from a fisherman's wharf holding onto the now 13-month-old child. Both die. And everyone involved is pissed because Canadian law is so convoluted that basically one justice's opinion that this woman poses no threat to herself or others -- despite the fact that a Canadian judge has ruled that there is enough evidence against this woman that she could stand trial for murder in both Canada and the U.S. -- is allowed to be released to commit an even more heinous act.

The laws have since been changed in Canada -- thanks to the outcry of some lawmakers who saw this film and were appalled at what they say.

All three were really good movies and while I'm looking forward to seeing more, there was one film that really caught my eye and was the impetus for making you wade through all this aforementioned bullshit to get to my point ...

If you've ever seen a film with John Cazale in it, chances are you've seen one of the greatest films in American cinema history. And that's no lie. John Cazale's film career spans about six years and five films -- from "The Godfather" in 1972 to "The Deer Hunter," which he was filming when he died of bone cancer in 1978. All five of his films were nominated for an Academy Award in the Best Picture category.

Who has he played? Well, his most famous role -- and one that you've probably seen him in -- is as Fredo Corleone in both Francis Ford Coppola's "The Godfather" and "The Godfather, Part II." He was Stan in Coppola's "The Conversation," an amazing film in its own right that has been largely overshadowed by the success of "The Godfather(s)" and Coppola's later work with "Apocalypse Now." He played Sal, opposed his good friend Al Pacino, in Sidney Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon." And he was opposite Robert DeNiro (again ... sort of) in Michael Cimino's "The Deer Hunter" as another character named Stan at the time of his death.

Five great films of the 1970s and he had a pretty big part in them all. Yet, he might be one of the most under-rated actors of that decade -- starring with the likes of Pacino, James Caan, Marlon Brando, Robert DeNiro, Gene Hackman, Christopher Walken and his fiance at the time of his death, Meryl Streep.

What interests me the most about seeing this film is the interviews offered by his contemporaries remembering him in this biography for what he did in a span of about six years -- even shooting his scenes in "The Deer Hunter" while he was dying. And, I think that interviews with today's under-rated stars Sam Rockwell, Steve Buscemi and Phillip Seymour Hoffman will lend an interesting perspective to this biographic documentary.

Of course, I have yet to see this movie and my opinions are loosely based off of what I read on the site, but made stronger by what I already know about Cazale -- that his agent did a really fucking good job selected five amazing roles for him in his unfortunately short career -- and the fact that one guy I work with, Rich, who barely watches any movies and hates most of the stuff I would fawn over anyway happened to catch this on HBO and was thoroughly impressed and said it was really good (if that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is) -- as we were talking about it at work tonight.

So needless to say, after I've moved this to the top of my Netflix queue and finally watch it in the very near future, I think my wife is going to have another film company obsession to deal with other than my affinity for Criterion.

And my wife is going to get pissed.

Lina Lamont should be shot ... and other good music and dance routines that are in no way related (or fit into the overall general plot) to this movie

Singin’ in the Rain (1952)

Adam’s rating: ★★★  (out of 5)

Director: Stanley Donen, Gene Kelly

Rated: none. 103 min.

No. 10 on AFI 100

No. 5 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 78 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Gene Kelly,
Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds

"Singin' in the Rain": No. 10 on AFI 100; No. 5 on AFI 100 (2007); No. 78 on IMDB Top 250

This was – and is – a tough film for me to review. While I typically despise musicals, I surprised even myself in liking this film the first time I watched it. However, after some careful reflection, I’m beginning to reconsider.

Leaving out the signature scene near the end of the movie when Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) figures out how to fix his trainwreck of a movie he’s making and some of the musical choices, the criticism I have for this film are plenty.

This film is a complete echo of “Sunset Boulevard” and knowing that it was made in 1952 – two years after Billy Wilder’s classic film noir -- makes this matter worse.

The concept of making a film about the start of the talkie in the history of Motion Pictures is half-ass unique. What’s interesting about this film is the portrayal of how the quick transition to sound affected Hollywood and the silent film stars. But, the long-term effect the transition to sound had in making young stars and starlets of the silent era obsolete is much more interesting in “Sunset Boulevard” – and, as Norma Desmond portrays in that film (which will get its review eventually), much more cryptic.

While there is something to be said for making a film about the immediate effect the advent of the talkie had on silent stars – and it is an idea with merit – it really boils down to what type of film you prefer? Would you rather watch an overtly bubbly, all problems get solved film like this, or a dark, cynical film noir from one of American cinema’s greatest writer/directors of all time?

My other love/hate beef with this film is the music. Initially – and I still feel this way – I love the music. About halfway through the film when Lockwood is recounting the tale of how he got big in Hollywood with Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) and once we get into the need to create Lockwood and Lamont’s next film into a talkie, that’s when the songs get interesting. I was particularly impressed with “Make ‘em Laugh” and “Moses Supposes” – as well as “Good Morning” and the dance sequences that accompany each song.

The biggest problem I have with the music is it doesn’t fit the movie. At all. And I didn’t really see this or become very cognizant of this fact until it was pointed out to me by a friend who was surprised when I said I liked this film based on the tongue-lashing I gave “Gone With the Wind” and she had to tolerate me bad-mouthing it.

Even the title song, “Singin’ in the Rain” and its iconic scene have nothing to do with the movie at all.

And frankly, that and the fact that this film is a more bubbly, happy-go-lucky version of what happened to the stars of the silent-era as the transition from silent to talkie hit is what’s wrong with this film.

Oh, and Lina Lamont’s voice.

Fake Criterion: The Kubrick Collection

One of the more coveted items for the Criterion Collection are Stanley Kubrick's collection of films. While early films like "Paths of Glory" and "Spartacus" have seen DVD and Blu-ray releases, the popular titles from the 1960s, 70s and even into the 80s have yet to see a DVD release on Criterion.

I even toyed with the idea of using the masqueraded and topless woman from "Eyes Wide Shut" for my design. But, much to my surprise, the photos were all pixelated and I decided to keep this somewhat family-friendly. I'd really like to take another shot at "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange." I feel I went to basic and mimicked the new designs on the remastered DVDs that came out a few years ago.

While these are some of the more popular Criterion fakes, it only felt natural to use these as my next installment of fake designs as some of these films are among my favorite films.

2001: A Space Odyssey

A Clockwork Orange

The Shining

Dr. Strangelove ...

Barry Lyndon

Eyes Wide Shut

Are you trying to seduce me, Mrs. Robinson?

The Graduate (1967)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★ (out of 5)

Director: Mike Nichols

Rated: none. 106 min.

No. 7 on AFI 100

No. 17 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 164 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Dustin Hoffman,
Anne Bancroft, Katherine Ross

"The Graduate": No. 7 on AFI 100;
No. 17 on AFI (2007); No. 164 on IMDB Top 250

Part of me wants to argue that this film is overrated, while the other part of me wants to laud this film for its accomplishments and achievement in American cinema. 


The cynic in me wants to fail to see what’s special about this film. A big part of me thinks that the reason this film is lauded is because of the amount of money it has grossed from its box office release in 1967 to its present day Blu-ray sales, not to mention how many people purchased the film on DVD, VHS, Laserdisc or watched it on TV.


The baby boomers wield a considerable amount of control with their dollars and the fact that this movie spoke to an entire generation as the pioneer film about angst and cynicism of the late-adolescence/early-adulthood set makes it a no-brainer that this film would be held in such high regard.


It's this part of the movie that makes me want to hate it.

However, when I first saw the film in my early 20s, it spoke to me. It made sense. I got it. I understood what Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) was going through -- that feeling of alienation and not knowing what to do with your life (either in college or post college). Within the film was a concept I could grasp – being bored, cynical, feeling uninspired and alienated from the rest of the world because you’re a young adult, doing your thing. Yeah, I get that feeling. Some days, I still have that feeling. This is a rapid changing world we live in. One in which the baby boomers are now in charge and -- thanks to economic setbacks -- won't be retiring any soon. What that means is a generation divide between those of us in Generation Y and X vs. the Boomers. There's even a major divide between Y and X, but the Boomers are trying to figure out how to communicate with Y and vice versa. To an extent, I still get it and I still get those feelings.

But frankly, now that I'm pushing 30, I'm starting to think that Benjamin Braddock is just down-right lazy. Because, really, who wouldn't want to lounge around the pool all day drinking beer and having a sexual relationship with the wife of one of your dad's wealthy business partners?


The things I really like about this film are some of the film techniques used, the acting and the pioneering spirit in which the story addresses angst, alienation and cynicism.


First, the techniques. The best of this is used when Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) finally gets down to business. The one I'm talking about is where the camera flashes a split-second to show Mrs. Robinson stripping, flashes back to a nervous Braddock, flashes back to Mrs. Robinson's midriff, back to Braddock, etc. Of course the iconic scene of seeing Braddock through the bend in her stocking-covered knee is exhilarating, but it's not as powerful as the split-second flashes. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about. I feel that the technique accentuates the anxiety that Braddock feels as this is probably the first time he's either seen a woman in the nude or been this close to sex with a woman. It's very powerful and you can feel the anxiety he feels in this scene.


It goes without saying the acting in this movie is superb -- even if Hoffman gives us shades of early "Rain Man." Hoffman and Bancroft make the film feel real, like something the viewers can relate to. And really are the stars of the show. And rightfully so. They did receive top-billing...

Finally, there is something to be said for the fact that this might be the first film of its kind to tackle the issue of teenage angst/early adult cynicism. It certainly did a better job of portraying this feeling than "Rebel Without A Cause." I also applaud it for breaking social norms, mores and taboos concerning sex, especially an affair between a married woman and one of her daughter's peers. Bravo! For 1967, that was quite a powerful subject to be broaching and clearly this film put the final nail in the coffin of the Hayes Administration with its controversial (for that time) subject matter. It really paved the way for some of the gritty, realistic dramas that made history in the 1970s.

Long film, short review

Schindler’s List (1993)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★  (out of 5)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Rated: R. 195 min.

No. 9 on AFI 100

No. 8 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 6 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley,
Ralph Fiennes

"Schindler's List": No. 9 on AFI 100;
No. 8 on AFI 100 (2007); No. 6 on IMDB Top 250

Eighteen years later and a movie that pretty much everyone has seen, there’s not much I can say about this film. It’s my opinion that this is one of Steven Spielberg’s two masterpieces in filmmaking and a very important landmark culturally and historically as the film serves as a graphic and best portrayal of the atrocities the Nazis committed in World War II.

It’s a very somber and serious film that is extremely moving and stirs up several emotions in me when I watch it. The film can be very emotionally draining and is one that should not be taken lightly. And for that I applaud the film.

However, the only criticism I can come up with for this film is asking the question(s): Is this film held in such high regard because of its subject matter and the seriousness of the film? Is this film truly deserving of such praise and a high ranking on “the lists”? Because critically speaking, I feel that aspects of this film are overlooked because everyone has seen it; everyone has liked it; and it is held in such high regard because of its serious subject matter – and because it’s quite possibly the greatest depiction of genocide, which thankfully the vast majority of us have never been exposed to first-hand. 

While I believe this film is offered a free pass, to some extents, because of the subject matter it deals with and the seriousness of it all, I also feel strongly that this is one of the best, and most powerful films, I have ever seen. 

And, it’s one of the more important films made in American cinema and for that reason, it is a must see for everyone.

Best "B" movie of all time!

Stagecoach (1939)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★  (out of 5)

Director: John Ford

Rated: none. 96 min.

No. 63 on AFI 100

None on AFI 100 reissue

None on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Claire Trevor, John Wayne,
John Carradine

"Stagecoach": No. 63 on AFI 100

There’s not a whole lot to say about this film other than it’s the one that made it possible for John Ford to make more movies and I absolutely love it.

The story is exciting: Indians are raiding forts and a group of people are moving from town to town via stagecoach without the security of the cavalry. The film is predominantly shot inside a stagecoach and to make matters worse, one of the women passengers is pregnant and about to give birth at a moment’s notice.

While John Wayne doesn’t get top billing in this film and his acting is still suspect as he was often times typecast in his career, I really enjoy watching this movie and it makes it even better now that I own the Criterion remaster of the movie.

It’s just simple and to the point and driven by story and minimal action. One of the first major Westerns and an important landmark in its genre.

You blow'd up my job!

Star Wars (1977)

Adam’s rating: ★★★1/2  (out of 5)

Director: George Lucas

Rated: PG. 121 min.

No. 15 on AFI 100

No. 13 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 15 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Mark Hamill,
Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher,
Alec Guiness

"Star Wars: Episode IV, A New Hope (1977)":
No. 15 on AFI 100, No. 13 on AFI 100 (2008),
No. 15 on IMDB Top 250 

Like most nerds, I love this movie. It’s the start of the entire saga. It’s the start of something new in science fiction. It’s the hero’s journey. It’s one of the most iconic films – and start of one of the most iconic film series -- of our generation.

And it’s not even my favorite.

I understand this film’s importance in the lexicon of science fiction and I respect it; but, I feel that on these lists the movie is overrated for its landmark status and less for its technical quality, story, etc. Usually, the hero’s journey starts with the initiation and embarking on that journey and while this film has that, the story is nowhere near as exciting as its sequel “The Empire Strikes Back.”

In terms of special effects, they’re good for a small budget in 1977. However, the succeeding films have better effects and while I like to take into account the technology available when a movie is made, I don’t buy that argument for “Star Wars” because of movies like “2001: A Space Odyssey.” The only argument I buy for why the special effects are a little lacking at points in this film (and too 1970s) is because of the budget (“2001” was an epic film with an enormous budget; “Star Wars” wasn’t. OK. But seeing lines and stop-motion animation in scenes is annoying).

Aside from my gripes, I still like this film. I’m enamored with the overall story – even if I don’t like it as much as other parts of the trilogy. This film is the start of a new journey; it’s the start of an iconic film series that has left its mark and a legacy on film buffs, fans, the world and film-making as a whole. And it’s still entertaining to watch more than 30 years later.

A sweet love story ... without talking

City Lights (1931)

Adam’s rating: ★★★1/2 (out of 5)

Director: Charlie Chaplin

Rated: none. 87 min.

No. 76 on AFI 100

No. 11 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 58 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Charlie Chaplin,
Virginia Cherrill

"City Lights"; No. 76 on AFI 100;
No. 11 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 58 on IMDB Top 250

This might be one of the sweetest love stories I’ve ever seen. At its core, Charlie Chaplin portrays his signature character, The Tramp, and falls in love with a blind girl while trying to help her save enough money to have a surgery that will cure her blindness so that she might see him.

What ensues between their meeting and her cure is hilarious, slapstick comedy that was necessary in the silent-film era. But this movie doesn’t disappoint.

It’s common for the audience to fall in love with The Tramp because he’s always trying so hard – but through no fault of his own, screws up. And that’s how this film goes, as he gets ahead and finds himself in situations to help this poor girl, but then stumbles a few steps back with misunderstandings with the law.

When the girl finally can see again, the two run into one another and it takes her awhile to realize that the little tramp she’s laughing at is actually the kind man who helped her get her vision back and then the light bulb goes off in her head and there’s a sweet denouement to the struggle in the film.

I’m a big fan of this film. I really like it. Not as much as “The Gold Rush,” but this one is up there in terms of the moral of the story and the fact that, like most Chaplin films, it relies solely on action and performance than words – because it is silent.