94. An American in Paris (1951)

Stars:  Gene Kelly (Jerry Mulligan), Leslie Caron (Lise Bouvier), Oscar Levant (Adam Cook), Georges Guétary (Henri Baurel), Nina Foch (Milo Roberts)

Director: Vincente Minnelli

Awards / Honors

• 6 Oscar wins – Best Picture, Best Writing, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Musical Score.
• 2 Additional Oscar Nominations – Best Director, Best Film Editing
• #68 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movies list (1998)
• #39 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Passions list (2002)
• #32 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Songs list – “I Got Rhythm” (2004)
• # 9 on AFI’s Greatest Movie Musicals list (2006)
• In 1993, An American in Paris was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

 Genre:  Musical

 Running Time:  1 hour, 53 minutes

 Format:  DVD, Blu-ray

 Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John – 3 Stars, Beth – 3 Stars)

John's Take 

So, this “screening” of An American in Paris was going to be the first time that I had ever watched the film all the way through from the beginning to the end.  I had seen bits and pieces of the film before – the ballet scene at the end of the film is usually part of any Film 101 college course after all – but never all the way through.  In addition, I have always been a bit of Gene Kelly fan, so I was kind of looking forward to finally sitting down and seeing all of it.

Let’s start out with the highlights.  First, the transfer to Blu-ray was fantastic.  The film is really quite gorgeous to watch. I send out a well deserved ‘Kudos” to the folks that worked on the restoration of the film.  They even did a nice job restoring the film’s original Mono soundtrack – the dialogue is clear and the musical numbers sound much “fuller” than one might expect from mono.

Second, Oscar Levant’s rendition of Gershwin’s Concerto in F is absolutely my favorite part of the film.  This is due in part to manner in which Vincente Minnelli shot that scene.  The shot is framed in a manner that really emphasizes Oscar’s hands just pounding on the keys of the piano.  Really the whole scene is just wonderful rendition of someone daydreaming about performing their favorite music.

Third, the “making of” featurette included on the disc is really quite excellent.  If you ever wanted to get a quick introduction in what critics are always going on about as far as things like “visual style” and what exactly Art Directors really do, then you will want to check it out.  The feature isn’t real long, but it does an excellent job of telling the story behind the movie and giving examples of how artistic elements are woven into films – such how the styles of various French Impressionist painters are used to affect the look of this film.

And of course, the final ballet at the end of the film is just fabulously done.

Now, for the stuff that, while not necessarily bad, certainly felt “out of sorts” for a lack of a better description.

For one, the film has surprisingly dark undertones.  You never get the feeling that anybody really ends up living happily-ever-after.  Milo and Henri certainly aren’t very happy.  We can assume Henri goes on with his American tour, but we never really know what happens to Milo after she wanders off to drown her sorrows in champagne after being dumped by Gene Kelly.  Oscar Levant’s character, Adam, just kind of stumbles off back into the party thus we never really know what becomes of him either.  Even in the case of Gene Kelly’s and Leslie Caron’s characters, we, the audience, know that the two of them really don’t know each other that well since they spent most of the movie keeping secretes from each other.  To paraphrase the “making of” featurette, An American in Paris kind of has a Graduate sort of ending.  The guy gets the girl, but you are kind of left with an ‘OK, what do we do now?’ sort of feeling.  Not exactly the sort of thing you expect from a classic MGM musical.

Second, there is no dialog for the last 20 minutes or so of the film.  Granted it is the ballet that everyone always remembers and praises about the film and I even singled it out for praise earlier in this post, but nearly 60 years later, it still feels… well, odd.  I remember having a discussion with someone about this film who said of the ending, “If it is so great, why hasn’t it been copied more often?”  There may be a small grain of truth hidden in that question. I s Hollywood so stunted artistically that it can’t find ways to recreate / reuse that type of visual style, or do we simply confuse uniqueness with art?  Maybe a little bit of both.

Ultimately, it comes down to this.  Beth and I both liked the movie, but we didn't think is was great.  Parts of it we thought were brilliant.  Parts of it we thought were just OK.  It certainly one of the prettiest films on the list, but overall there are films on the list that are better.  We both give An American in Paris a rating of 3 Stars. 

John

BETH'S TAKE:

It's not that I didn't like this movie..it was just "OK". I felt there was absolutely no chemistry whatsoever with Gene Kelly and Lise Bouvier. The relationship between the two was not believable by any means. And even though they ended up together at the end...I didn't believe that they would stay together. The 20 minute ballet scene at the end, although very good...was a bit too long for me. But as I stated...the movie was "OK" LOL

Tagline Trivia!

Hey Folks,

To make up for the lack of posts for the last couple of months here is a little trivia quiz for you all to enjoy. Try to identify the movies that these taglines belong to.  What is a “tagline” you ask?  Well according to Wikipedia a tagline is:

A tagline is a variant of a branding slogan typically used in marketing materials and advertising.  The idea behind the concept is to create a memorable phrase that will sum up the tone and premise of a brand or product (like a film), or to reinforce the audience's memory of a product.  Some taglines are successful enough to warrant inclusion in popular culture.

In the case of motion pictures they are normally associated with the movie’s promotional posters, but they can, and often are, used in other forms of advertising.

Here is some additional information to assist you in trying to guess what the movies are:

• None of the movies are obscure.  That doesn’t mean they were all good necessarily, but you will have hear of them and /or they all star actors and actresses familiar to most people.
• None of the movies are sequels.  For example, if you think one of the movies below is one of the Indiana Jones films, then it would have to be “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.
• The movies are listed in order by release date (US wide release date to be exact, as defined by Wikipedia). For example, Movie #1 was released on March 2nd, 1990 and Movie #2 was released on, or after that date.  Movie #3 was released after or on the same date as Movie #2, and so on.  Movie #55 was released October 15th, 1999.
• Lastly, every year (1990, 1991, 1992, etc.) is represented in the list and there are multiple movies for each year.  The distribution is not exact (some years are better represented than others), but each year is represented by at least four taglines.

Post your answers in the comments and I will eventually post the answers there.  Also, don’t cheat and Google the answers.  That is no fun.  Just see how many you can get on your own.

Movies from the 1990s

 

1. Invisible. Silent. Stolen.

2. She walked off the street, into his life, and stole his heart

3. Hey dude, this is no cartoon

4. They stole his mind, now he wants it back

5. You will believe

6. A family comedy without the family

7. The Civil War had ended, but one man's battle with himself was just beginning...

8. Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Brilliant. Cunning. Psychotic. In his mind lies the clue to a ruthless killer. Clarice Starling, FBI. Brilliant. Vulnerable. Alone. She must trust him to stop the killer.

9. For the good of all men, and the love of one woman, he fought to uphold justice by breaking the law.

10. It's not the same old Thing.

11. What if Peter Pan grew up?

12. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll hurl

13. A brutal murder. A brilliant killer. A cop who can't resist the danger

14. Never let her out of your sight. Never let your guard down. Never fall in love.

15. A husband. A wife. A millionaire. A proposal

16. An adventure 65 million years in the making

17. What if someone you never met, someone you never saw, someone you never knew was the only someone for you?

18. Power can be murder to resist

19. A murdered wife. A one-armed man. An obsessed detective. The chase begins.

20. She makes dinner. She does windows. She reads bedtime stories. She's a blessing... in disguise.

21. Yabba-Dabba-Doo!

22. Get ready for rush hour

23. Life is like a box of chocolates...you never know what you're gonna get.

24. When he said I do, he didn't say what he did.

25. From zero to hero

26. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free

27. Girls like me don't make invitations like this to just anyone!

28. Drink from me and live forever

29. For Harry and Lloyd every day is a no-brainer

30. His passion captivated a woman. His courage inspired a nation. His heart defied a king.

31. Houston, we have a problem.

32. Let he who is without sin try to survive

33. Attitude plays a part

34. The dark side of nature

35. Alcatraz. Only one man has ever broken out. Now five million lives depend on two men breaking in

36. Don't make plans for August

37. Some things in life just can't be explained

38. A lawyer and his assistant fighting to save a father on trial for murder. A time to question what they believe. A time to doubt what they trust. And no time for mistakes.

39. Someone is going to pay

40. The rest of his life begins now

41. Someone has taken their love of scary movies one step too far

42. They were deadly on the ground. Now they have wings.

43. In order to catch him, he must become him

44. Protecting the earth from the scum of the universe

45. Impenetrable. Invincible. In Trouble

46. Collide with destiny

47. A comedy from the heart that goes for the throat

48. Oceans rise. Cities fall. Hope survives

49. Size does matter

50. On the air, Unaware

51. All the time in the world is all they've got

52. The mission is a man

53. Uh, oh!

54. It’s a whole new west

55. Mischief. Mayhem. Soap.

 

1990’s Bonus

 

Note: These bonus taglines don’t necessarily follow the same rules as the ones above do. :)

 

1. It's nothing personal (1991)

2. Lived any good books lately (1995)

3. Something has survived (1997)

4. Every generation has a legend. Every journey has a first step. Every saga has a beginning. (1999)

5. The Toys are Back in Town (1999)

 

John

New Movie List (Finally .. yes I know)

OK, I know what you are all thinking…

“John, it has been three months since your last post – you stink as a blogger!”

And you would be right. I have several reasons – but really no excuses. I have kind of let myself get sidetracked by a number of things. I am also likely get sidetracked again in just a few weeks (for those of you living under a rock – World of Warcraft: Cataclysm is just a few weeks from release – woot!).

However, I promise to try to make a better effort to keep this little journey on track.

And if I fail it will be Beth’s fault. :)

Without further ado, here is the next four movies on our list:

94.  An American in Paris (1951) -- Blu Ray
93.  The Manchurian Candidate (1962) -- DVD
92.  Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966) -- DVD
91.  Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) -- Blu ray

John

THIS IS BETH - IT WILL NOT BE MY FAULT...NOTHING EVER IS MY FAULT REMEMBER! LOL

95. Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Stars:  Tom Hanks (Captain John H. Miller), Tom Sizemore (Technical Sergeant Mike Horvath), Edward Burns (Private First Class Richard Reiben), Matt Damon (Private First Class James Francis Ryan), Jeremy Davies (Technician Fifth Grade Timothy E. Upham), Vin Diesel (Private First Class Adrian Caparzo), Ted Danson (Captain Fred Hamill)

Director:  Steven Spielberg

Awards / Honors

• 5 Oscar wins - Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound
• 6 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Picture, Best Actor (Tom Hanks), Best Writing (Orginal Screenplay), Best Art Direction, Best Make-up, Best Original Score
• #45 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills list (2001)
• #10 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers list (2006)
• #71 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
• #8 on AFI's 10 Top 10 lists - Epic Movies (2008)
• According to Box Office Mojo, Saving Private Ryan is approximately the 102nd highest grossing movie of all time (when accounting for inflation)

Genre:  War Drama

Running Time:  2 Hours, 49 Minutes

Fomrat:  DVD, Blu-ray

Odyssey Rating:  4 1/2 Stars (John - 5 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take

OK, let’s cut to the chase with this film.  Saving Private Ryan is an excellent film.  I give it a rating of 5 Stars and it deserved all of the accolades that it received.  I love this film, and can watch it over and over.  Add to that, the Blu-ray transfer is spectacular.  There.  Now that is out of the way, here is what I actually want to talk about: artistic license in historical fiction – when is it OK and when it is not? 

Historical fiction has always been popular in movies.  The problem is filmmakers haven’t always been very concerned about differentiating between what is “historical” and what is “fiction”.  Sometimes it can’t be helped. I get that.  History is complicated, and the more exciting, action-packed, and emotional an historical event seems, the more complicated that event probably was, and complication makes for bad story telling.  Good stories are always very simple at their core.  They have heroes (preferably one or a really small group) overcoming great difficulties or villainous foes (preferably both) – in other words you need conflict and you need to resolve the conflict in simple and direct ways.  So, if a filmmaker needs to modify / omit events or characters a little to make the narrative work a bit smoother, then that is understandable.  It is the definition of “a bit” that seems cause problems.

While there are any number of examples of films where “artistic license” was used a bit too liberally, the one that immediately comes to mind is the film Braveheart.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  I love this film and I have seen it many times.  However, it is probably one of the most inaccurate historical dramas ever made.  Short of having the story take place in Australia and having William Wallace wielding a light saber, I am not sure it could get any less accurate.  Historian Sharon Krossa described the film thusly:

"The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate—in short, just about nothing is accurate."

Director and star Mel Gibson freely acknowledges the many historical inaccuracies, but has always defended his directorial choices, by saying that the way events are portrayed in the film are much more "cinematically compelling" than the historical fact.  I would certainly agree with the “cinematically compelling” statement.  Like I said, I love this movie.  So do millions of people.  So what is the problem? 

The problem is that we were being sold a lie.  If movie had been marketed as the fictional story of Wally Williams and it took place in some non-specific time in the Middle Ages, well then no harm, no foul.  It wasn’t, however.  It was sold as a being based on real events, but very little in the movie happened the way it was depicted, if at all.  Sorry, artistic license or not, that is just wrong.  How can we learn from the past if our popular forms of media feel that they can just present history any way they like and not be clear about the fact they are doing so? 

Sometimes historical fiction is done well.   The movie I should be talking about, Saving Private Ryan, is an example where it is done well.  It was fictional story, but it didn’t feel the need to completely disregard actual events.  About the most critical thing you could say is that the movie seems to give the impression that Americans took Omaha Beach all by themselves, which wasn’t the case.  For example, Tom Hanks and crew should have been aboard a British landing craft with a British pilot.  Many nations fought and died on those beaches that day, but the movie just shows you Americans and Germans.  Could that have depicted more accurately?  Sure, and it probably should have been.  That being said, the Omaha Landing was depicted far more accurately than say the Battle of Stirling Bridge was in Braveheart.  Which battle was that you ask? It was the “They will never take our Freedom!” battle.  Yes, I know, there is no bridge depicted in the film.  There was one in real life mind you.  And a river.  And an over-extended British army trying to cross the little tiny bridge when they were sneaked attacked by the Scottish.  In other words, where WWII vets were going on record for saying how realistic the D-Day scenes were in Saving Private Ryan, absolutely nothing of the battle you see in Braveheart actually happened. 

Look, Mel Gibson is going through a lot these days and I am not trying to pile on him, but the fact is that he doesn’t let little things like… umm… facts, get in the way of the story he wants to tell (don’t even get me started on The Patriot) and he and other directors do a disservice to everyone when they allow their expressions to run unchecked by reality.  Hollywood seems to think that words “based on” or “inspired by” means “we only have to get some of the names correct”.  Like it or not, the entertainment industry has a measurable effect on how people learn about and view both historical and current events. F ilmmakers should feel free to tell whatever stories they want, but when they get sold as being true when in fact they are not, it is false advertising and people should be held responsible.  

Not only that, it hurts documentary and educational filmmakers as well.  Even when historical fiction is done right, like Saving Private Ryan, there is just no way documentaries and educational movies can compete with multi-million dollar Hollywood productions.  Yes, Saving Private Ryan is a great piece of historical fiction, but regardless of how accurate it may be it shouldn’t be confused with historical fact.  Hollywood should make a much better effort to differentiate between the two.  It would benefit everyone if they did.

John

BETH TAKE:

Let me just start to saying...I love Tom Hanks...he my favorite actor of all time..LOVE HIM...LOVE HIM...LOVE HIM!

Like John, I loved this movie...I gave it 5 stars...so yeah, I loved it! Unlike John, I can not watch this movie over and over. I don't know if there is anyone like me out there, but I can't watch sad and dramatic movies over and over. I can watch it once, and be glad that I did see it...but I can truly go without watching them ever again. I can name two movies that I feel this way about...this one, Saving Private Ryan and The Green Mile...oddly enough, they both have Tom Hanks in them (I just realized that lol). I loved both movies but Saving Private Ryan is a little bit too dramatic for me and The Green Mile is just way too sad.

And unfortunately, at the end of SPR...Tom Hanks dies...WHAT? Tom Hanks can't die in a movie :(

96. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Stars:  Tim Robbins (Andy Dufresne),  Morgan Freeman (Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding), Bob Gunton (Warden Samuel Norton )

Director:  Frank Darabont

Awards / Honors

• 7 Oscar Nominations - Best Picture, Best Actor (Morgan Freeman), Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Original Score, and Best Sound Mixing
• #23 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers list (2006)
• #72 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)

Genre:  Drama

Running Time:  2 Hours, 22 Minutes

Format:  DVD, Blu-ray

Odyssey Rating:  4 1/2 Stars (John - 5 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take

It is easy to forget after being bombarded repeatedly by the same 30 second commercials for movies like Salt, or The Expendables, or Scott Pilgrim vs. The Word that marketing is not just an annoying part of the film industry, but a necessary one.  Every year Hollywood movie distributors spend literally billions of dollars to buy paid advertising – TV commercials, newspaper ads, etc.  Why?  Well, because unless it is a mega-blockbuster, films don’t typically linger in theaters for more than four to six weeks, which means that the movie distributors have a very limited window in which to make as much money as they can.  Theaters just don’t have the ability to wait for a movie to build an audience by word-of-mouth anymore.  Granted, film promotion is definitely a double-edged sword.  The emphasis on focus-group reaction and profitability estimates certainly can impact the artistic quality of film in a negative way.  On the other hand, if no one sees a film, can it be considered art at all?

The Shawshank Redemption is a prime example of how film promotion can be both helpful and detrimental to a motion picture.  There is no doubt that Shawshank is one of those films that everyone loves.  For example, it is currently # 1 on IMDb’s list of best reviewed movies.  It is one of Rodger Ebert’s “Great Films”, and while always a film-critic favorite, this film has started to grow more highly regarded than either Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction, the two most critically acclaimed films the year of Shawshank’s release.  Time is certainly being kind to this film.  With such glowing, nearly-universal praise, it is easy to forget that this film was a box office flop.  After its initial theatrical run, the film was about 15 million dollars in the hole.  35 million to produce and it made only about 20 million or so.  The film was such a box office disappointment that when asked about it later, director Frank Darabont, stated: “We couldn’t beg people to go see this movie when it first came out.”  Why was such a critically acclaimed movie like The Shawshank Redemption (and a surprisingly large number of other films on this list) such a financial failure?

The answer:  the film had a bad marketing campaign.

The number of people I have met over the years, that when discussing this film, tell me that they saw this film in the theater is surprisingly high.  But considering how little money this movie made while in the theaters, I have either been very lucky to have known a large number of sophisticated movie-goers, or some of them were lying – they saw it on cable or on VHS just like the rest of us.  Now, the reason I didn’t see this movie in the theaters is probably the same reason most of you out there didn’t see it in the movie theaters:  we didn’t have any idea what this movie was about and I didn’t like the title.  Go out to Wikipedia and take a look at the theatrical poster for this movie.  Now, combine that image with the rather cryptic sounding title “The Shawshank Redemption” and try to divine what this movie is about.  Not exactly easy is it?  The point of a promotional campaign is to convey to you what genre movie falls into (action, horror, comedy, romance, etc.), and some idea of what the movie is about.  Can you honestly tell me you can derive any idea of what the plot is from the title and the poster alone?

Granted, a title and a movie poster does not an entire film promotion make.  If we take a look at the poster for a movie I mentioned earlier, Salt, it doesn’t exactly portray a great deal of information either.  However, the movie trailers clearly do.  I haven’t seen Salt, but based on what I have learned form the commercials, I could tell you that Angelina Jolie plays a CIA operative that is on the run from her fellow spies because she may or may not be a Russian sleeper agent.  I can tell you that it is an action movie with lots of stunts and explosions, and that Angelina appears scantily-clad in at least one scene.  But then again, I can’t help but know this.  The trailers for this movie have been appearing on my TV every 15 minutes for the last month, so it is OK that poster is simply some sort of simple teaser and the title of the film is rather silly.  Now, in Shawshank’s defense, its trailers do a pretty good job of letting you know what the movie is about as well, but can any of you out there actually remember ever seeing them?  I can’t.  In fact, I went out and specifically searched for the trailers and watched a few.  I can honestly say I don’t remember ever seeing any of them.  Not in the theaters, not on TV, never.

What’s the lesson here?  While you may have to deal with some “backlash” issues if you inundate me with advertisements for your film, I absolutely won’t see it if I don’t know what it is about, so you better make sure your marketing campaign reaches me.  I think that is the case with most people – they won’t go spend money on a movie that they know nothing about.  So with a media campaign that clearly failed to reach anyone, all people had to help them make the decision on whether or not to see this film was the title (cryptic) and the movie poster / newspaper ad (usually the same image).  Considering the resulting box office totals, I suspect that most conversations about seeing this movie went something like – “The Shawshank Redemption? I have no idea what that is about.  Let go see that Tom Hanks movie instead, the previews for that looked great …”

So, what transformed this failure into such a critical success?  The Oscars.  Again, as much as many film snobs like to berate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as simply a marketing device (sort of like I did back in my Sunrise post), one cannot argue the effect that the “Oscar bump” had on this film.  The Shawshank Redemption was nominated for seven Oscars, but didn’t win one – it, along with Pulp Fiction had a hard time competing with the award-accumulating Forrest Gump juggernaut.  However, with a re-tooled Oscar-centric marketing campaign the movie garnered about another 10 million or so in box office receipts, still not enough to break even on production costs, but the nominations had helped get even more people to see it and that lead to good word-of-mouth, which in turn helped build an audience for the film.  With a quick release into the home video market, along with a heavy rotation on cable television – and Presto! – one of the first classics of the home video age is born.  The Shawshank Redemption, a film that tanked at the box office, in part due to a poor marketing campaign, went on to become profitable and beloved due to a better tuned one.

So, does that mean I think that the ultimate success of this film is due solely to the correction of a bad marketing plan?  Of course not.  Ultimately, this film has become a classic because we all see ourselves as Andy Dufresne.  We all, at times, feel like we are trapped in our own little Shawshank Prisons, so we all root for Andy as he tries to survive in his.  No, marketing didn’t make The Shawshank Redemption a good movie, but bad marketing nearly prevented any of us from seeing it, and that certainly would have been a crime.

The Shawshank Redemption gets a ranking of 5 Stars.

John

BETH'S TAKE:

Morgan Freeman is one of the best actors ever. I can't think of one movie I have watch with him that I did not like. This one included. My one and only complaint about this movie...IT'S WAY TOO LONG!! Once I thought the end was approaching...NOPE, it wasn't!

But overall...very very good movie..highly recommend watching it!

97. Wuthering Heights (1939)

Stars:  Laurence Olivier (Heathcliff), Merle Oberon (Catherine), David Niven (Edgar Linton), Flora Robson (Ellen Dean), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Isabella Linton)

Director:  William Wyler

Awards / Honors

• 1 Oscar Win - Best Cinematography (Black & White - Gone with the Wind won for Color)
• 7 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Laurence Olivier), Best Supporting Actress (Geraldine Fitzgerald), Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Art Direction, Best Orginal Score
• #73 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (1998)
• #15 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Passions list (2002)
• In 2007, Wuthering Heights was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Genre:  Romantic Drama

Running Time:  1 Hour, 43 Minutes

Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray -- see below)

Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)

John's Take

If you are wondering why this is not a very long post, it is because, once again I staging a little protest in hopes that I can actually get Beth to create a post on a blog that was, in fact, her idea to start with.  I choose to do this now because: 

1. She liked this movie a little more than I did, so it makes sense she would have something to say about it.
2. Perhaps now that we are actually married, she will take a little time away from all of the other social networking sites she spends time on and actually contribute to “our” blog because I ask her too.  Ultimately, I do not hold out much hope, but one can always dream….

One thing, I will mention, however, was the difficulty that I had actually tracking a copy of this film down.  It wasn’t available on Netflix – it is listed on the site, but only with the “Save” option indicating that it isn’t currently available.  It wasn’t available at our local Blockbuster.  Best Buy didn’t have a copy of it either. Ultimately, I had to track down a non-regionalized copy on Amazon.com that was intended for the South Korean market (the packaging is a mix of English and Korean, and Korean is the sub-title option).  Not sure why it was so difficult to track down.  Usually that indicates some sort of “repackaging” deal, such as an “anniversary” or upcoming conversion to Blu-ray, is going to be announced soon.  However, since the next major anniversary for this film is still four years away (75th), and there is no mention on websites such as Blu-ray.com concerning a Blu-ray release, I am left sort of confused.

If anyone happens to know more about why this movie is currently “not available”, please leave a post and let me know.

Oh… and I give Wuthering Heights a rating of 3 Stars.

John

BETH'S TAKE:

I think I am a little late with "My Take" on this film...John posted his thoughts in August 2010...it's now January 2011...Sorry sweetie..better late than never though right?? LOL

John's right, I did like this movie alot. I wanted Heathcliff and Catherine to get together so badly. He truly loved her..and she loved him...but he was just never going to be good enough for her in her mind. She married Edgar for the wrong reasons...it was so "Gone With The Wind-ish" for me :). Edgar and Heathcliff deserved better than Catherine..but she have charm about her which drove them both crazy!

Oh and P.S. I wonder if Bill Cosby got his name "Heathcliff" (on the Cosby Show) from this movie...HMMM, not a very common name LOL

98. Goodfellas (1990)

Stars:  Ray Liotta (Henry Hill), Robert DeNiro (Jimmy Conway [James Burke]), Joe Pesci (Tommy DeVito [Thomas DeSimone]), Lorraine Bracco (Karen Hill), Paul Sorvino (Paulie Cicero [Paul Vario]), Samuel L. Jackson (Parnell "Stacks" Edwards)

Director:  Martin Scorsese

Awards / Honors

• 1 Oscar win - Best Supporting Actor (Joe Pesci)
• 5 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Lorraine Bracco), Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Editing
• #94 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (1998)
• #92 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
• #2 on AFI's 10 Top 10 lists - Gangster films (2008)
• In 2000, Goodfellas was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"

Genre:  Drama / Gangster film

Running Time:  2 Hours, 26 minutes

Format:  DVD, Blu-ray

Odyssey Rating:  5 Stars (John - 5 Stars, Beth - 5 Stars)

John's Take

I love this movie. I mean, I really LOVE this movie.  If I were actually compiling this list – instead of just collating two pre-existing lists – Goodfellas would, without a doubt, be somewhere in my Top Five.  I have lost track of the number of times I have seen this movie over the last 20 years.  It probably has to be around 40 times or more (once every six months or so sounds about right).  I do / have owed copies of this film in VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray – I am like K is with the Beatles’ White Album when it comes to this film.  If you watch this film and don’t walk away saying, at the very least, “That was pretty good…”, then you need to seek professional help because something is very wrong with you.

Now, the problem is, what do I write about this movie?  I mean, this is one of those movies that everyone pretty much universally loves.  Not only is it on both of AFI’s greatest American movies list, but is currently #17 on IMDb, list of best movies and Rodger Ebert named it “the best mob movie ever”.  So, instead of just rehashing well-covered cinematic aspects of the film, here are some interesting facts about the movie Goodfellas that you may not have know before.

The Scorsese / DeNiro / Pesci Connection

When these three work together, they cannot help but produce classic work.  Robert DeNiro has been in eight Martin Scorsese films (Mean Streets; Taxi Driver; Raging Bull; King of Comedy; Goodfellas; Cape Fear; Casino; New York, New York).  Joe Pesci has been in three (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino).  Of the three Martin Scorsese films that have made the AFI’s list of the top 100 films of all times, DeNiro was in all three while Pesci was in two (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas).

The Goodfellas / Sophie’s Choice Coincidences

It is probably inaccurate to say that Goodfellas was the Sophie’s Choice of the 1990’s, but there is no doubt that there are some striking parallels between these two movies .  OK. maybe not striking, but intresting is a silly sort of way: 

• Both movies are perfect examples of the dominate genre of their respective decades.  The 1980’s, the decade of Sophie’s Choice, was the era of big, heart-wrenching historical films such Amadeus, Gandhi, A Passage to India, Dangerous Liaisons, The Color Purple, The Last Emperor, Empire of the Sun, Driving Miss Daisy, The Elephant Man, Reds, and Out of Africa.  The 1990’s, the decade of Goodfellas on the other hand, was the decade where criminal dramas were king – The Godfather Part III, The Green Mile, Bugsy, Hoffa, L.A. Confidential, Tombstone, Fargo, Casino, Unforgiven, Silence of the Lambs, Donnie Brasco, and The Shawshank Redemption. 
• Both movies are basically three-man shows – Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline, Peter MacNicol in Sophie’s Choice; Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci; and Ray Liotta in Goodfellas.
• Sophie Zawistowski is considered by many to be Meryl Streep’s signature role.  Tommy DeVito is generally considered to Joe Pesci’s signature role.
• While both Ray Liotta and Peter MacNicol, both have very successful film and television careers, neither have been able to capture the critical success they both had in these films.  Both roles came up relatively early in their film careers and while both may be the “weakest link” in their little threesomes, neither movie would have been as good with someone else playing those roles.

The Goodfellas and Music Connection

There are approximately 45 or so songs featured in the movie Goodfellas – ranging from artists like Tony Bennett and Dean Martin to The Rolling Stones and The Who.  In fact, there aren’t too many films out there that are better examples of how music can influence a film.  To quote Wikipedia:

Martin Scorsese chose the songs for Goodfellas only if they commented on the scene or the characters "in an oblique way".  The only rule he adhered to with the soundtrack was to only use music which could have been heard at that time.

For example, if a scene took place in 1973, he could use any song that was current or older.  According to Scorsese, a lot of non-dialogue scenes were shot to playback.  For example, he had "Layla" playing on the set while shooting the scene where the dead bodies are discovered in the car and the meat-truck.  Sometimes, the lyrics of songs were put between lines of dialogue to comment on the action.

Some of the music Scorsese had written into the script while other songs he discovered during the editing phase.  There is no music once Henry is arrested in his driveway by the DEA, until the end credits.

The Movie Characters vs. The Real People

• While a number of the minor characters in the film are referred to by the real names of the people that their characters were based upon.  Henry and Karen are the only major characters that use people’s real names.
• Jim Colella, Detective Ed Deacy, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Ed McDonald all play themselves in the movie.
• Despite being described in Henry Hill’s testimony, there is no evidence that Michael "Spider" Gianco ever existed or that he was murdered by Tommy DeSimone (Pesci’s Tommy DeVito character in the movie).
• Tommy DeSimone / Tommy DeVito was in fact killed in reprisal for the murder of two of John Gotti's close friends (Billy Batts, like in the movie, and a guy named Ronald “Foxy” Jerothe).  While January 14th, 1979 is often citied as the day he died, that date has never been officially confirmed.  January 14th is the he was reported missing and Henry Hill’s testimony places the time of his death as “a week after Christmas”.  Tommy’s body was never recovered, so the whole part of the narration describing Tommy being shot in the face, was just created by Scorsese and Nicholas Pileggi.  Henry Hill claims that John Gotti himself killed Tommy, but that has never been confirmed.
• The “Lufthansa Heist” was a real robbery perpetrated by the characters the movie is based upon and, as mentioned in the movie, was the largest robbery in American history at the time (1978). Approximately 6 million dollars had been stolen.  Also, just like in the movie, James Burke (DeNiro’s character Jimmy Conway) became paranoid and greedy and started knocking off the other participants in the crime.  For a time the police believed that Burke had killed Tommy DeSimone (or that Tommy was in hiding from Bruke) due to Tommy’s participation in the robbery.
• Of the three major characters only Henry Hill is still alive.  Henry divorced Karen (who I presume is also still alive) and both are no longer in the witness protection program.  Henry has been to rehab multiple times for a drinking problem. 

That is one of the great things about this movie. It is just one of those cases where the real stories are just as fascinating as the ones the movie tells.  The screenwriters (Nicholas Pileggi and Martin Scorsese) didn’t have to embellish the story – they needed to simplify it.  If you have some free time, I highly recommend you perusing the Wikipedia entries concerning the real people / events depicted in Goodfellas.  It is a heck of a read.  As far as the movie is concerned, as one of my all-time favorites, of course Goodfellas gets a solid rating of 5 Stars from me.

John

BETH'S TAKE:

Great movie! I am a little morbid of a person...I love to watch "Murder Shows" (48 hrs, Wicked Attraction, Most Evil...Discovery ID is my favorite channel)...and I have a HUGE fascination with the mob. So this movie was right up my alley.
Henry Hill was determined not go live a life like his mother & father. He became a part of the mob family and enjoyed every bit of it..no matter what that meant. Unlike alot of other mobsters however, Henry was compassionate. He truly cared about the "Family". And I also believed he truly loved his wife, Karen. He did everything he could to please her and give her what she wanted. She may have hated knowing the fact he had a girlfriend or many girlfriends, but she was not willing to go back living like "common folk" either.

One questions, does Joe Pesci have to play the same arrogant mob character in every mob movie he plays in?? LOL...remember him in Casino...freaked me out when the shanked him over the head with a baseball bat then, barely clinging to life..they buried him alive...YIKES!

But anyway, back to Goodfellas...I think everyone loves this movie..how could you not. It great!

Two thumbs up!

Movie List for May, 2010

Hey Folks,

Well, we are gaining some ground as far as the blog to real-life is concerned, but not as much as would like. In our defense however, Beth and I have been fairly busy this month (July). In case there is in fact anyone out there reading this blog, that doesn’t know Beth and I in real life, Beth and I got married this month. Yay us!! So, the last couple of months have been fairly hectic. I promise, however, to make a more concerted effort to post more frequently in the future and bring this Blog and real-life more into synch.

With that in mind, here are the movies that we will be watching in “May”:

98. Goodfellas (1990)

97. Wuthering Heights (1939)

96. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

95. Saving Private Ryan (1998)

John

99. Bringing Up Baby (1938)

Stars:  Katharine Hepburn (Susan Vance), Cary Grant (Dr. David Huxley), May Robson (Aunt Elizabeth Random), Charles Ruggles (Maj. Horace Applegate)

Director:  Howard Hawks

Awards / Honors

• #97 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (1998)
• #14 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Laughs list (2000)
• #51 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Passions list (2002)
• #88 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
• In 1990, Bringing Up Baby was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Genre:  Romantic Comedy

Running Time:  1 Hour, 42 Minutes

Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  2 1/4 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 2 Stars, Jon - 2 Stars, Becky - 2 Stars)

John's Take

I found myself in an unusual position concerning this movie.  You see, we watched Bringing Up Baby on the same evening that we watched In the Heat of the Night, and thus we joined in the screening by Official Friends of Beth and John’s Movie Odyssey, Jon and his wife Becky.  If I had been betting on what everyone’s individual rankings would have been after watching the film, and seeing as it is a romantic screwball comedy, I would have guessed that Beth and Becky would have given the movie 4 Stars while Jon and I probably would have given it 3 Stars at best (being guys and all).

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

I found the movie to be mildly amusing.  No else however, including Beth which I found to be particularly surprising, liked the movie at all.  In fact, and I list these just for historical reference, there were only two sections of the movie where anyone but me actually laughed:

Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn):  "He's three years old, gentle as a kitten, and likes dogs."  [pause]   I wonder whether Mark means that he eats dogs or is fond of them?

And this exchange:

Mrs. Random (May Robson):  Well who are you?

David Huxley (Cary Grant):  I don't know.  I'm not quite myself today.

Mrs. Random:  Well, you look perfectly idiotic in those clothes.

David Huxley:  These aren't my clothes.

Mrs. Random:  Well, where are your clothes?

David Huxley:  I've lost my clothes!

Mrs. Random:  But why are you wearing these clothes?

David Huxley:  Because I just went gay all of a sudden!

And the primary reason why everyone laughed at the second bit of dialog is because Cary Grant jumps up into the air, making silly faces and gestures (he does look very funny when he does that).

Otherwise everyone sat through the movie quietly, occasionally muttering things like, “This was on a list of 100 greatest movies?” and “I am not getting this hour and half of my life back am I?”  Whereas I laughed quite a bit and thought the movie was cute and reasonably enjoyable.  It wasn’t the best movie I had seen so far, but it certainly wasn’t the worst.

Surprised by the fact that I, the person I thought least likely to appreciate the movie was the only one to actually like it, I tried to get people to articulate why they didn’t like it.  Maybe if I can get Beth to actually post on what is supposed to be a joint-effort blog, she might be able to shed some light on her feelings, but as far as Jon and Becky were concerned the best answer I could get out of them was “It was kind of pointless and predictable.”

At the risk of putting words in Jon and Becky’s mouth, some of their problem with the movie may have been that nothing in it felt very original to them.  The primary reason for that, is that elements of Bringing Up Baby has been copied or influenced (either directly or indirectly) so many other romantic comedies – such as films like What’s Up, Doc? and Who’s That Girl? – not to mention any number of television sitcoms I can think of – a certain feeling of “I have seen this before” is understandable.

This movie was a huge flop when it was first released – to the point that it almost cost director Howard Hawks his career.  As time has past however, many people now view the film as a classic (which is why it is on AFI’s list, I guess).  I am not sure it is a classic or not, but unlike some of the other films I have posted about – [cough] A Place in the Sun [cough], [cough] All the President’s Men [cough] – I am going to defer to the American Film Institute on this one and say yes, it should be on the list of greatest American movies.  I know the others will disagree, but I liked the movie and I would watch it again.  From me at least, Bringing Up Baby gets a rating of 3 Stars.

John

BETH'S TAKE:

Unfortunately there isn't anything good I can say about this movie. It was awful I thought. I can't believe this movie was ranked in the AFI's favorite list. There was maybe one or two scenes that were ammusing..but honestly...that's it. It was boring...and even though it was only 1.75 hours long...it was still too long :)

Katharine Hepburn...I love her...just very disappointed that she was a part of this film. Seems as if they tried to hard to make her funny.

If I could have given this a negative star...I would have...but I gave it 2 for effort only :)

100. In the Heat of the Night (1967)

Stars:  Sidney Poitier (Detective Virgil Tibbs), Rod Steiger (Police Chief Bill Gillespie), Lee Grant (Leslie Colbert), Warren Oates (Officer Sam Wood )

Director:  Norman Jewison

Awards / Honors

• 5 Oscar Wins - Best Picture, Best Actor (Rod Steiger), Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Film Editing, Best Sound
• 2 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Director, Best Sound Editing
• #19 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villians list  - Virgil Tibbs, Hero (2003)
• #16 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes list - "They call me Mister Tibbs!" (2005)
• #21 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers list (2006)
• #75 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2006)
• In 2002, In the Heat of the Night was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Genre:  Drama

Running Time:  1 Hour, 49 minutes

Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  5 Stars (John - 5 Stars, Beth - 5 Stars, Jon - 5 Stars, Becky - 5 Stars)

John's Take

In my review of Patton, I chastised the American Film Institute for what they included and didn’t include on their list of 100 greatest movie quotes.  If I am going to chastise them when they get it wrong then I need to applaud them when they get it right, and they certainly got it right when they included a quote from In the Heat of the Night.  Myself, Beth and Official Friends of Beth and John’s Movie Odyssey, Jon and Becky, all together, unprompted, and in perfect unison mimicked Sidney Poitier as he responds to being sarcastically asked what they call him in Philadelphia with the line: "They call me Mister Tibbs!"  That is a great line.  It so great, it has so worked our way into our public psyche that Beth was able to mimic the line along with the rest of us and she hadn’t seen the movie before!  When lines from movies you have never seen make it to your subconscious – that when you know you have something special.  And In the Heat of the Night is something special. 

For those of you who don’t know, In the Heat of the Night is the story of Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier), a Philadelphia police detective who just happens to be passing through the fictional small town of Sparta, Mississippi and finds himself – slightly unwillingly – helping the local police force solve a murder case.  Needless to say, many of the fine folks of Sparta are not thrilled with the idea of an African American leading the investigation, including the Chief of Police, Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger).  Released in the same year as another Poitier classic (and #124 on our list), Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, these two movies are very different takes on race relations in America. Guess Who was the happy fable – the view of how things could be.  In the Heat of the Night was (and sadly still is in some cases) a more realistic presentation of how things actually were.  While it is not exactly fair to compare the two films since Guess Who is a comedy and In the Heat of the Night is a drama, it is clear that In the Heat of the Night is aging better. 

That is because Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner ultimately fall victim to the After-School-Special-Syndrome, a condition very prevalent among “issue films”.  The identifying symptom of this condition is the one-dimensionality of the characters – absolutely good or absolutely evil.  This one-dimensionality is particularly true of characters such as Joey Drayton, Dr. John Prentice and nearly all the minor, supporting characters.  In the Heat of the Night, on the other hand, has very well developed characters.  Chief Gillespie is a prejudiced man who is actually sympathetic and capable of growth.  Virgil Tibbs is also shown to be capable of prejudice, as he pursues Endicott without sufficient evidence.  Virgil isn’t above using the local population’s fear of the police to his advantage either (“Now listen, hear me good mama. Please. Don't make me have to send you to jail... There's white time in jail and there's colored time in jail. The worst kind of time you can do is colored time.”). 

It is the fact that the movie portrays an entire spectrum of prejudice, from the crazy extremists to the more subtle forms, which is what ultimately sets it apart from not only from Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, but  To Sir, Sir With Love (another Poitier movie released that year – 1967 was big year for Sidney Poitier), The Chase, and Hurry Sundown.  Virgil, Gillespie, and the other characters all come off as real people. Nobody is completely good. Nobody is completely evil. 

The first of the 25 movies we watched, Toy Story, garnered a perfect rating of 5 Stars.  It is a pleasant coincidence that this film, the first of the second set of 25 also gets the same score.  If you haven’t seen this film, I cannot recommend it enough. In the Heat of the Night gets a rating of 5 Stars.

John

BETH'S TAKE:

Awesome film! I also like the TV show.

My problem with movies of this topic and of this time is that I didn't grow up in this era. I do get fustrated watching such films. I have never seen obvious prejudice, at least that I know of. I have always been around so many races and cultures that I can't even believe people believed that one race/culture is better than another. I praise my parents for raising myself and my siblings so humbly if that is even a word :)

The First 25: A Recap

Hey Folks,

So, we are 1/5 of the way through the list.  I think that calls for a little recap.  Here are the movies that make up the first 25:

125.  Toy Story (1995)
124.  Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967)
123.  Blade Runner (1982)
122.  Do the Right Thing (1989)
121.  The Last Picture Show (1971)
120.  A Place in the Sun (1951)
119.  My Fair Lady (1964)
118.  Sophie’s Choice (1982)
117.  The Jazz Singer (1927)
116.  Swing Time (1936)
115.  Patton (1970)
114.  Frankenstein (1931)
113.  12 Angry Men (1957)
112.  Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)
111.  A Night at the Opera (1935)
110.  The Sixth Sense (1999)
109.  Fargo (1996)
108.  Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
107.  Giant (1956)
106.  Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
105.  Spartacus (1960)
104.  All the President’s Men (1976)
103.  Pulp Fiction (1994)
102.  Dances with Wolves (1990)
101.  Titanic (1997)

Plus we had two “Bonus Movies” that got added to the list:

Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
El Dorado (1967)

Making for a grand total of 27 movies screened so far.  One thing for certain, those 27 movies do represent a nice cross section of flim history.  We have 2 movies from the 1920’s, 5 movies from the 1930’s, 1 movie from the 1940’s, 3 movies from the 1950’s, 4 movies from the 1960’s, 3 movies from the 1970’s, 3 movies from the 1980’s, and 6 movies from the 1990’s.  So, the 1990’s are the most well represented decade for movies so far.

Keeping in mind that our Ranking Scale (which we borrowed from Netflix) is: 1 Star - Hated It, 2 Stars - Didn't Like It, 3 Stars - Liked It, 4 Stars - Really Liked It, 5 Stars - Loved It; from a Ranking standpoint, the films break down like this:

1.  Pulp Fiction (5 Stars)
2.  Toy Story (5 Stars)
3.  A Night at the Opera (5 Stars)
4.  12 Angry Men (4 ½ Stars)
5.  Patton (4 ½ Stars)
6.  Dances with Wolves (4 ½ Stars)
7.  Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (4 ½ Stars)
8.  My Fair Lady (4 ½ Stars)
9.  The Sixth Sense (4 ¼ Stars)
10.  Do the Right Thing (4 Stars)
11.  Fargo (4 Stars)
12.  Blade Runner (4 Stars)
13.  Spartacus (4 Stars)
14.  Swing Time (4 Stars)
15.  Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (4 Stars)
16.  Sophie’s Choice (3 ½ Stars)
17.  El Dorado (3 ¼ Stars)**
18.  Titanic (3 Stars)
19.  Giant (3 Stars)
20.  Bride of Frankenstein (3 Stars)
21.  The Jazz Singer (3 Stars)
22.  The Last Picture Show (3 Stars)
23.  Frankenstein (3 Stars)
24.  Mutiny on the Bounty (3 Stars)

25.  Yankee Doodle Dandy (3 Stars)

26.  All the President’s Men (2 ½ Stars)

27.  A Place in the Sun (1 ½ Stars)

Pulp Fiction, Toy Story, and A Night at the Opera are the only movies so far with perfect scores, while Yankee Doodle Dandy, All the President’s Men and the pathetically bad A Place in the Sun round out the bottom of the list.

We will revisit this again after the next 25 movies, but at the moment, that is how everything has shaken out.  So, I guess all that is left to do at this point is to plow on ahead into the next 25 films – the next on the list being Number 100, the 1967 Sidney Poitier classic, In the Heat of the Night.

John

** What can I say, Official Friends of Beth and John’s Movie Odyssey – TJ and Jeff – both really like this movie., so we have a bit of a statistical aberration on our hands.

101. Titanic (1997)

Stars:  Leonardo DiCaprio (Jack Dawson), Kate Winslet (Rose DeWitt Bukater), Gloria Stuart (Rose Dawson Calvert), Billy Zane (Cal Nathan Hockley), Kathy Bates (The Unsinkable Molly Brown), Bill Paxton (Brock Lovett)

Director:  James Cameron  

Awards / Honors

• 11 Oscar Wins - Best Bicture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Original Score, Best Film Editing, Best Original Song ("My Heart Will Go On"), Best Art Direction
• 3 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Actress (Kate Winslet), Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Stuart), Best Makeup
• #25 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills list (2001)
• #37 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Passions list (2002)
• #14 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Songs list - "My Heart Will Go On" (2004) 
• #100 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes list - "I'm king of the world!" (2005)
• # 83 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
• #6 on AFI's 10 Top 10 list - Epic Films (2008)
• Titanic is approximately the 6th highest grossing movie of all time, accounting for inflation (see Box Office Mojo)

Genre:  Historical / Romantic Drama

Running Time:  3 Hours, 14 Minutes

Format:  DVD (Not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  3 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 3Stars)

John's Take

Of the 20 or so films on this list that I hadn’t seen before starting our little film Odyssey, this was the only film that I was actively dreading.  I really expected to hate this movie, and part of me really wanted to hate this movie.  I recognize that there is a certain level of irony in a situation where I write a review that focuses on how “backlash” can have an adverse effect on how we perceive a film (Dances with Wolves below) and that it ends up getting posted between two reviews where my perception of the films and / or its fans have been clearly affected by backlash (this one and Pulp Fiction).  So, I promise to try to not let any of the preconceived notions that have been become firmly entrenched in my mind over the years affect my review of this movie.

As I said, I really didn’t want to like this movie.  In fact, over the years, I have has actively tried to avoid this movie like it was a plague carrying rodent.  Why?  Well because I felt betrayed by James Cameron.  Here was a man that made great “guy movies” like The Terminator, Rambo, First Blood Part II, Aliens and True Lies and he goes and makes a giant chic flix?  I was appalled.  I strongly suspected that James Cameron had been replaced some sort of alien shape-shifter that was secretly trying to emasculate all men as part of a plot to take over the planet.  Part of me was certain that if I watched the movie that it would somehow suck all of my testosterone out of my body in much the same way a vampire might suck out all my blood.  Side Note: Speaking of blood-sucking, I currently feel the same way about the Twilight movies as well, but at a level about ten-fold of what I felt about Titanic. 

Having now watched it, I must reluctantly admit that Titanic wasn’t all that bad.  It wasn’t the greatest movie I had ever seen but it was certainly better than films like A Place in the Sun or All the President’s Men.  Also, I haven’t noticed any drop in my testosterone level, but the jury is still out on the vampiric properties of the film.  Until those test results come in, I am giving the movie a ranking of 3 Stars.

Having said all that, one important question remains – how did this movie become one of the highest grossing movies of all times?  Look, I realize I am a male so maybe it is just biologically impossible for me to understand, but can some woman out in the Inter-verse please try to explain this to me?  Unfortunately Beth is no help in this case.  She kind of feels the same way about the movie as I do (she hadn’t seen the movie either).  While I am certainly not a fan of chic flixs in general, I am not without a certain level of appreciation for some of them. I like Steel Magnolias, Pretty Woman, Dirty Dancing, and the Mother-Of-All-Chic-Flixs Gone with the Wind, for example.  Still, I don’t understand why did women go and see this movie over and over again?  At the time of the film’s release my friend Rob explained it as “some sort of bizarre mother / daughter rite of passage”. Is that it?  Because really, I just don’t understand.

So, again, women of the Internet, please, please tell me why you all spent so much money on Titanic?  I really want to know, because there is got to be some way to use that information to my advantage. 

I won’t even discuss all the Oscars, other than I believe part of the reason why The Hurt Locker beat out Avatar for Best Picture was The Academy’s way of making up for all the awards that it heaped on Titanic.  Like an NBA or NFL ref calling a ticky-tack foul later in a game to make up for a bad call they made earlier in the game.

OK, some of my preconceptions are starting to reemerge, so let’s just end this post before it starts to get out of control.  Again, the movie was far better than I thought it was going to be.  In fact, I would go on to say that I actually kind of enjoyed it.  That being said, I truly don’t understand how Titanic became one of the highest grossing; most award winning movies of all time.  It is good, but it is not that good.  I also wouldn’t include it as one of the all-time best.  The only explanation I can come up with is that James Cameron has indeed been replaced by an alien – we will just have to wait and see.

John

BETH'S TAKE:

When this movie first came out in 1997 I said that I wouldn't see it...everyone knows what happens...the ship sinks.

But now that I have seen it, I am glad that I did.

The side story with Jack and Rose is very sweet. Kate Winslet did an awesome job on the part of Rose. I am not a huge fan of Leo, but he was pretty good also. I must say, the movie made me think of all of those families that were less fortunate and were made to stay on the boat until the more fortunates were rescued. Just horrible!

102. Dances with Wolves (1990)

Stars:  Kevin Costner (Lt. John J. Dunbar), Mary McDonnell (Stands With A Fist ), Graham Greene (Kicking Bird), Rodney A. Grant (Wind In His Hair), Floyd Red Crow Westerman (Ten Bears)

Director:  Kevin Costner

Awards / Honors

• 7 Oscars Wins - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Original Score
• 5 Additional Oscar Nominations - Best Actor (Kevin Costner), Best Supporting Actor (Graham Greene), Best Supporting Actress (Mary McDonnell), Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design
• #75 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (1998)
• #59 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers list (2006)
• In 2007, Dances with Wolves was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."
• Dances with Wolves is approximately the 112th highest grossing movie of all time, accounting for inflation (see Box Office Mojo)

Genre:  Historical Drama

Running Time:  3 Hours, 54 Minutes (Director's Cut)

Format:  DVD (not yest available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  4 1/2 Stars (John - 5 Stars, Beth 4- Stars)

John's Take

As I have mentioned in previous posts, sometimes movies don’t age well.  Usually this is taken to mean that one or more elements of the movie seems wrong or odd to a modern audience – say, something like showing a husband and a wife sleeping in separate beds, antiquated special effects, or even something more serious like racial stereotypes.  Despite how critically acclaimed a movie may have been at the time, it always runs the risk of eventually becoming irrelevant.  On a rare occasion, however, it is not any particular element of the movie, but the success and accolades that the movie receives that have a negative impact on its shelf-life.  In other words, it becomes the victim of backlash.  It seems like Dances with Wolves is becoming one of those films.  As the years have past since the movie’s release, it seems like there is a growing desire among people who write about movies to take this movie "down a few pegs" for some reason.  In other words, the film’s reputation is starting to be affected by the backlash it has been subjected to over the years.  That backlash has come in many forms.

First, there is the fact that Dances with Wolves was Kevin Costner’s directorial debut, and a great number of people thought he was certain to fail.  This is because, as the stories go, Kevin refused to play it safe.  Instead, Costner consciously chose to break all the “rules” that first time directors are supposed to follow: 

• Don’t work with animals – this film is full of difficult to train animals like wolves that needed to perform on cue, not to mention Costner nearly breaking his back during the buffalo hunt.
• Don’t work outside – the entire film takes place outside and South Dakota is not known for predictable weather.
• Don’t work with children – there were several supporting characters that were minors.
• Don’t get too attached to your “vision” – A director can’t always include everything they want in a movie.  The theatrical release of Dances with Wolves is just over 3 hours long.  The Director’s Cut, which seems to be the default home video version, is just under 4 hours long.  Your movie better be really good if you want an audience to sit still for that long.

With information like that in mind, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the film was dubbed “Kevin’s Gate” as the production began to spiral over budget.  Costner even ended up throwing in a few million dollars of his own money to get the movie completed.  There were plenty of Hollywood insiders and pundits that were convinced that film was doomed. I am sure that many of were extremely disappointed that in the end the movie was a huge success.  

Now had Costner taken a step back, thanked his lucky stars, and made a vow to himself not to make the same sort of mistakes again, he probably could have prevented some backlash.  Unfortunately, he didn’t do that.  It seems like the success of Dances with Wolves seem to simply just convince him that he knew precisely what he was doing and he preceded to handle his next two directorial projects – Waterworld and The Postman – more or less the same way.  History has shown that was a mistake.  The critical and / or commercial failure of both those films gave those Hollywood naysayers the ammunition they needed to write off Dances with Wolves as simply a fluke.

A second thing contributing to the backlash is how often Dances with Wolves has been copied or parodied.  In Hollywood, success brings on imitation, and having been very successful, Dances with Wolves has been imitated many times.  There was The Last Samurai (Dances with Katanas), FernGully: The Last Rainforest (Dances with Fairies), and  Avatar (Dances with Smurfs) just to name a few.  A host of movies such as Hot Shots! (“Now I am called Tukachinchilla. -What does it mean? - Fluffy Bunny Feet.” “Dances with Bikers got this for you…”) parody the movie as well.  While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, it can also diminish the thing being imitated – especially when those imitators are of lesser quality.  People forget how good the original was because they have grown bored with all the copies.

A third thing that people like to pick on is that Dances with Wolves tends to be a preachy.  The Native Americans are portrayed perhaps just a little too idyllically while the white Calvary men are portrayed perhaps just a little overly cruel.  Is that a bad thing?  Considering how badly America has treated the nation’s indigenous peoples – not to mention how they have traditionally been portrayed in film – I don’t think really think so, however, as a general rule, people don’t go to the movies to be made to feel bad, whether or not it is justified.  Thus, people feel the need to point out inaccuracies in an attempt to feel better.  If you are really successful, like Dances, or say Avatar, eventually the focus on inaccuracies transform into accusations of indirect racism; that the film is nothing but a fantasy where a white guy becomes an irreplaceable member / leader of a culture that is not his own.

Lastly, but related the third point, you have the fact that Dances with Wolves beat out Goodfellas for the Best Picture Oscar because it was a “cause film”.  In fact, Goodfellas never had a chance to win Best Picture.  There was no way that a movie about violent gangsters was going to be beat about a film that tells the story of how white Americans cruelly treated the Sioux because the white-man is too ignorant to see how brave and noble the Sioux are.  Hollywood and the Oscars live for movies like that – at least until another cause-of-day comes along.  Unfortunately it has been quite a few years since Dances was the cause-of-day, and just on its own merit Dances with Wolves was better than Awakenings, or Ghost, or The Godfather, Part III, but it clearly wasn’t better than Goodfellas.

As I said earlier in the post I really don’t agree with a lot of the backlash concerning this movie.  Not that I think that some of it isn’t completely without merit.  The film was indeed a vanity project for Costner.  The film (or it is copies / parodies) was everywhere for a while and it is understandable that people got sick of it.  The film is a little preachy and the fact that it was more “socially conscious” than its competition was ultimately how it ended-up winning the Best Picture Oscar.  All of that is more or less true; however, that is why it is important to re-visit movies from time to time.  It had been about 5 years or so since I had last seen this film, and I had probably seen it maybe 10 or 15 times since it had been released, so I am fairly familiar with it and could have easily written about it without watching it again.  Had I done that, however, my ranking for the film would have been different. I would have probably given the movie 4 Stars.  However, after watching it again, it reminded me that it is still a really great film and deserves to be included on the list of all-time greats and am somewhat confused on why it was excluded from the AFI 2007 list.

Despite that how long it is, and how legitimate some of the other criticisms may be, this movie is beautiful to look at, tells an engaging story, and has a good heart.  I give it a ranking of 5 Stars.

John