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.

This movie is better with the mute button on and "Dark Side of the Moon" playing on the stereo ...

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Adam’s rating: ★ (out of 5)

Director: Victor Fleming

Rated: none. 101 min.

No. 6 on AFI 100

No. 10 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 122 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Judy Garland,
Frank Morgan

"The Wizard of Oz"; No. 6 on AFI 100;
No. 10 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 122 on IMDB Top 250
 
Exactly what my headline says.

Watching this movie is like going to a college football game or college basketball game where the visiting team is ranked higher than your team and your team blows them out and you join in with the entire crowd chanting, “Overrated!” in the final minutes. This film is super-overrated.

I remember watching this movie when I was four. My dad made a big deal about it because we had just got our first VCR and he had rented this movie on VHS and was ranting about how it was the first movie to be made in color and bla bla bla. And I barely remembered watching it. Until I watched it again as an adult.

The older I got, the more I watched it and the only scene I liked – as long as “Dark Side of the Moon” wasn’t accompanying the movie (note: start the album after the third time the MGM lion roars to start the movie to get the sync right) – was when the munchkin hangs himself.

And, the flying monkeys creep me out.

Why do I need to watch this movie? I've never understood it. I've never understood any of its redeeming qualities. I don't understand why the AFI rated this movie so high, although I do understand why it's one of the most beloved movies among older people.

 

Aside from my gripes, in terms of technical stuff, I feel like this movie gets a free pass because it is one of the first color films (similar to “Gone With the Wind”). It's like we're all supposed to drop what we're doing and admire what is really a terrible family film, with splotchy color on the Wicked Witch of the West, because this is the first movie to use color. And Technicolor was such a monumental achievement that somehow this a good enough rationale for ranking this film at the top of all of the best of, must-see movie lists? No, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is a monumental achievement in the history of animation. I'm sure color is a big deal; but it's a much bigger deal -- and better executed -- in "Gone With the Wind," which in this case (and I can't believe I'm saying this) is a much better movie than "The Wizard of Oz."

See my headline.

The story is terrible – and completely taken out of context from the book it was based on, despite the fact that the book was one of protest for social change in turn of the 19th century America and the movie was somehow changed into a lovable kids film where all symbolism was lost on a stupid girl who runs away from home with a tornado coming.

Personally, I’d rather see the house drop on Dorothy as punishment for running away and being outside when the tornado comes. Then there would be no movie.