Witty dialogue, a unique set up, and tension stick with you the entire way.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #42/100 Awards: Four Nominations for Director, Adapted Screenplay, Color, and Sound Mixing My Rating:
Some movies struggle to do one thing well, failing to even be a good example of the genre that they are intending to represent.
Rear Window does so many things well. The four main characters are immensely interesting with their banter and witty dialogue moving the film along. The set up is a man stuck at home due to a broken leg with no entertainment other than the lives of his neighbors — voyeurism at its best. Add the murder mystery and you get to see an exquisite example of the great Alfred Hitchcock at work.
Not only is the movie stale, it cycles through several formats never deciding what kind of movie it wants to be.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #92 Academy Awards: Nominated for nine winning six, including Best Director and Screenplay My Rating:
I read about 300 pages of American Tragedy; it’s a behemoth of a book, clocking in at over 900 pages, and when I went to renew it someone had put a hold on it. I just rechecked it out, so I was shocked when I realized that a movie of a completely different name picks up at part 2 of the novel.
Even though I did not finish the book, this movie does it absolutely no justice — it wrings out all the juice leaving us an attempt at a love story. This film is simply dated, and while it might be a top 100 for cultural reasons, it exhibits little power today.
Some of the numbers are a bit lame, but the story, acting and sets are intriguing enough to make up for the boring parts.
American Film Institute Ranking: #10/100 Academy Awards: Nominated for two – Supporting Actress & Original Music Score My Rating:
The story’s iconic scene with Gene Kelly has been burned into the collective consciousness of Americana, but what about the rest of the movie?
Singing in the Rain pairs an interesting story with some solid musical numbers to be a pretty good film. While some of the lulls can be quite treacherous to get through, there is usually enough interesting things on screen, whether talent, clothing, set, or cinematography to make it bearable.
This movie has it all: interesting story, good setting, great acting, amazing musical score, but the character of Terry Malloy is in another stratosphere.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #8/100 Awards: Nominated for twelve winning eight, including Best Picture, Director, Actor, and Supporting Actress. My Rating:
At its heart, this is a classic good vs. evil. Where it gets complicated is every character has a lean they are facing, and we wait to see how they are going to act under pressure. The character that has the most pressure is Terry Malloy; he a complicated and fascinating lead and is the reason this movie is worthy of such high praise.
Time passage in the story is synced with realty, making the clock a constant motif and reminder — time is running out.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #33/100 Awards: Nominated for seven Academy Awards, winning four (Actor for Gary Cooper and then some editing and musical stuff). My Rating:
This movie has a handful of things going for it, but I’m not sure where they stand against the test of time.
The backdrop of the movie was McCarthyism, and the film is supposed to be a representation of someone willing to stand up against evil when all others wilt. The film runs in real time, with every shot including a clock corresponding with the correct amount of time that has passed in real life. It flips the Western on its head, having an ending that is somewhat counter to what would be considered traditional.
Putting it all together, enough happens where it produces an average film, enjoyable albeit hard to recommend to others.
Okay – I know that quote never happened, but what did happen is Hollywood’s template that it still uses today: love story, playful characters, happy ending, good always prevails.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #2/100 Awards: Nominated for eight winning three: Picture, Director and Writing/Screenplay. My Rating:
From the first moments in Rick’s cafe, I realized that I was going to really enjoy this one. What Hollywood does so well is pulling the wool over our eyes. The movie’s plot and characters feigned, pushing against the boundaries of reality, but time and time again we find the magic produced so enticing we suspend our thinking minds and tap into our imaginations.
This doozy of a WWII flick combines anything you can consider to be Hollywood and does it at a high level. The dialogue, the characters, the setting, and the plot all swept me up, transporting me to a time that no longer exists (and truthfully never did) for one of the best films of all time.
This movie combines the awe-inspiring nature of the west with mostly inorganic and stale characters leaving me wondering: can setting alone carry a movie?
American Film Institutes Ranking: #96/100 Awards: None My Rating:
I sometimes take a peak at other people’s thoughts on a movie before settling down on my own: was there an angle I missed or a piece of lore that impacts how I view the film? Roger Ebert is consistently someone I go to first because of his acerbic wit and clear writing. His review for “The Searchers” is a study in character analysis as he slices and dices the depth of the two main leads, reading far into the director’s intentions and purpose.
I simply disagree with what he comes up with.
Ebert dives deep into the shallow souls of these scantily-detailed characters, projecting life into them that I just cannot see. Where he finds impactful statements and testaments to the director’s hidden or subliminal messages, I see stage props — exception being the main character. This leaves me feeling that the environment was more dynamic than the story and characters: the West is daunting with staggering depth and isolation, while the characters are more true to the stagnant mountains that surround them.