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!