The next 10...

It has taken me a little over 7 months to watch #90-#81. It’ll get harder and harder now that Hallie is in this world, but trust me, she's worth it! These 10 were a little harder to get through with them being older in style and also longer in length. Looking at the next 10 gets me really excited. I’ve loved watching these, but I think it’ll just get more enjoyable as I go along.


Here's how #90-#81 faired:
1. 12 Angry Men - *****
2. The Sixth Sense - *****
3. Titanic - **** 1/2
4. Platoon - ****
5. Easy Rider - ****
6. Sunrise - ****
7. Swing Time - *** 1/2
8. Spartacus - *** 1/2
9. A Night at the Opera - ***
10. Bringing Up Baby - ** 1/2

#81: Spartacus (1960)

Oscar Winner:

Best Cinematography, Best Supporting Actor (Peter Ustinov), Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design

I hate the word epic, especially when it's tagged as the genre of a film. It makes me think that the film is going to be long in length, have a lot of scenic shots to just show you how grand the movie actually is, and be very predictable. Spartacus easily met all these qualifications. So, the question was if I would enjoy this movie? It did take me several sittings to get through the 3 hour and 15 minute run time, but in the end, the qualities that make an epic indeed an epic, made this film an entertaining watch.

Kirk Douglas plays the title character, a tough slave who is sold into the hands of a Gladiator trainer, Batiatus (brilliantly acted by Peter Ustinov). With the brute combination of mistreatment and falling in love with one of Batiatus' slave girls (Jean Simmons), Spartacus leads a rebellion that overthrows the camp. As Spartacus leads the slaves towards their homeland, he unknowingly becomes a chess piece in a political game between two Roman senators, the republican Gracchus (Charles Laughton) and the militarist Crassus (Laurence Oliver).

Does the plot sound familiar at all? Switch out a few settings and names, and this could've totally been Gladiator or Braveheart (Oddly enough, epic, yet one of my favorite films). As mentioned before, this film is tough to get through solely on its length. If it would've been trimmed down by 45 minutes, it would have been much more watchable and I honestly think it could've retained its impact. It's interesting to know that Stanley Kubrick directed this film because it feels very dated. It's historically known that this was the last film in which he didn't have full control over all elements of the film and it shows. As a viewer, you slowly see two styles start to clash. Spartacus has that traditional Hollywood stiffness to its acting and dialogue that was so prominent in an earlier film on this list, Ben-Hur. But you begin to see Kubrick interject his now famous artistic vision in the way he stages and composes some shots. There is a much more realistic nature to the violence that must have not been seen up to that point. Spartacus is very revolutionary in the way that you can see a new style of filmmaking starting to take over the movie system.

Even though Kirk Douglas comes off like Charlton Heston at times, he definitely can carry a film, but its the supporting roles that keep one invested into the plot. I was surprised by how much more interested I became in the political maneuvering than I did the battle scenes. Unfortunately, there aren't too many surprises to what happens. I don't know if it's because that so many things that occur in the movie are now cliches in the epic genre, but when you aren't kept on the edge of your seat with a film like this, it's hard to pay attention.

That said, the plot is challenging enough to keep you invested and it really does have some moments that are truly memorable. I can now say, "I am Spartacus!" and know the emotional impact it carries. I can see why this film eked its way onto this list, but unless you just eat the epic genre up, you may could find a better feast.

I give Spartacus 3.5 out of 5 fights to the death.

* If you ever have a chance, reading about all the chaos that happened to get this film made is probably more interesting than the film itself.

#82: Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)

Oscar Winner:

*Best Picture - Unique and Artistic Production, Best Cinematography, Best Actress (Jay Gaynor)

* The only time this category was awarded to a film

Ah yes... The first silent film on this list. Guess what? It's not even a comedy! It would almost take bribery to get most people to sit down and watch a silent film, but just like any type of history, one needs to discover something's past to truly gain an appreciation for it. It's been since college that I've really taken the time to sit down and watch a silent film, and although I don't recommend doing it at 10 p.m. (silent film = sleepiness), I'm so glad I did it with Sunrise.

Directed by the famous German director, F.W. Murnau (most famous for the vampire flick Nosferatu), Sunrise mixes Hitchcockian thrills and romance to tell a tale of rekindled love. Blended with the German expressionism style that Murnau made so famous (how about that film history knowledge being dropped on you!) and enhanced passion that audiences so love, Sunrise follows The Man (George O'Brien) and The Wife (Janet Gaynor) whose marriage is on the rocks. One night, The Man is tempted by The Woman From the City (Margaret Livingston) to kill his wife and leave his farm and children behind for a glorious big-city life with her. With obvious guilt-ridden feelings, The Man can't go through with the plan, but through this more-than-major set back, a stronger bond forms between the married couple.

This film is 83 years old and its amazing to see the apparent influence it has had on now current films. Two major components stood out to me. First off, I loved the cutting-edge editing and camera work of the film. Silent films always seem to be constrained in one setting, so it was refreshing to see an older movie get away from the genre’s static nature. Also, Murnau uses overlay effects to great dramatic effect that still seem innovative today. Even the very few title cards have an artistic breath to them. I couldn't help but think that Moulin Rouge was heavily influenced by this film by not just the editing, but the setting as well. Which brings me to the second component... The cinematography is beautiful. It's not a surprise that it won the Oscar for this category in the way that it captures its vast cityscapes that often had me admiring how they filmed their scenes.

Unfortunately, these technical achievements couldn't hold my attention very well when the second act of the film started. I absolutely loved the beginning and the end of this ironic fairy tale, but as the couples romance starts to bud once again, things start to slow down and it starts to feel like... well, a silent movie. Don't get me wrong, it's still a very engaging story, but the middle almost feels like a completely different film. But it's needed to have the very strong payoff at the end.

I would be remorse if I didn't mention the strong performances in the film. Silent film acting is a whole different type of performance and O'Brien and Gaynor bring so much conviction and realness to their roles. I would love to see how present actors would fair in a silent film like this. In a way, I think it would be an experiment that would really separate the really great actors from just the good ones.

If I hadn't started to get bored somewhat during the middle of this film, Sunrise would get a much higher rating for me. Despite that, I would definitely recommend it to just about anybody and if you forced to only watch one silent film to be an example for the genre, I wouldn't mind this one being it.

I give Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans 4 out of 5 drunken piglets.

#83: Titanic (1997)

Oscar Winner:

Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Sound Effects, Best Visual Effects, Best Music (Original Dramatic Score), Best Music (Original Song), Best Sound

One of the great things about seeing films multiple times is that it can evoke an entirely different sentiment the second time around. People will always have films that they will revisit time after time, but I'm talking about a response that is the complete opposite of what you originally felt. How many times have you revisited a film from your youth and it wasn't quite as good as you remember? I had the exact opposite reaction to Titanic on second viewing. Like everybody else in 1997, I saw Titanic, but as a teenager, the romantic air of the film made me want to gag. Although I thought it was a good film, I didn't quite understand why it broke so many Oscar records. I wasn't necessarily looking forward to seeing it again, but much to my surprise, I couldn't believe how much I was swept into…. yes, I'm going to say it… a movie masterpiece.

Yes, even a young child probably knows that the Titanic was the ship that was said to be unsinkable, but the director James Cameron uses a forbidden romance between two social classes to guide us through the disaster. Torn between being her own person and high expectations of a fortune-bound marriage, spoiled Rose (Kate Winslet) reluctantly comes across an artsy, yet poor star-crossed lover in Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio). Jack slowly, but surely, starts to crumble the walls of society that Rose is so bound in, but just as the two decide to take the giant leap into forbidden devotion, an iceberg comes along and ruins their party.

Even though every movie pretty much has a three-act structure, people don't mind dividing this movie into two-halves; the romantic story and the disaster story. Although I think that the sinking of the ship is a far better part and as close to perfect filmmaking that there is, I was surprised by how much I got caught up in Jack and Rose's story. This film had to have a strong foundation for you to invest in a journey where you already know the outcome. Cameron does a brilliant job of flipping the tables and makes the unknown into what happens to this young couple. Although this romance can't help but reek of cheesiness (and is the reason for not quite making it a five-star movie), I emotionally bought into these characters as my teenager soul mocked me in the back of my mind. I'm sure Winslet and DiCaprio have to shudder a bit when they watch this film because their performances aren't necessarily the best ever, but you can for sure see the talent budding that has now made them the top tier of the acting world.

Now that I got that sappy stuff out of the way, I have to expound on how gripping the visuals of the Titanic going down were. Cameron uses special effects mixed with live action to perfection. You can definitely see the budget of this film on screen, but I was shocked at how well everything holds up here. It's been a long time since my eyes were literally glued to the screen and I was totally swept up by the impact of the impending doom. The editing of the disaster scenes are near perfect and I think what really draws you in is the secondary characters that bring a realness to the screen that is very much needed.

Titanic is a film that contains humor, romance, action, big-screen effects, drama, sadness, and most importantly, entertainment. I'm not quite sure why all those elements weren't so clear to me when I was sixteen, but thank goodness for this list to help me see the way.

I give Titanic, 4.5 out of 5 scandalous portraits.

#84: Easy Rider (1969)

It's fitting that watching this film coincided with the recent death of Dennis Hopper, the producer, director and star of Easy Rider. It was known as one of his best works, and deservingly so. Easy Rider is easily the most experimental film to appear on this list so far, which is an understatement for a film that is laced with drug use. It's not often that you can feel the filmmakers’ presence behind the cameras when watching a film. It's not distracting though because you feel their own intentions, as well as the story's. Their approach happened to not just change the way films were made, but effected a whole generation.

Set alongside the southern roads of America, Wyatt (Peter Fonda) and Billy (Hopper), hop on their motorcycles to head toward New Orleans after scoring some major cash after a cocaine deal. Invoking a Western-styled journey (influenced heavily by hippie ideals) Wyatt and Billy encounter both friends and foes as they embrace their ultimate destination of, well… life… man… Total freedom is the ultimate goal for these two nomads, but they learn that even their peace-loving ideals don't often bring the truest form of serenity.

This was actually the second time for me to see this film, and honestly, I wasn't as impacted this time around. Strangely enough, I almost feel like this film is best viewed just once. I love the editing (especially the transitional cuts) and the cinematography, but it's so easy to disregard the magic of what's happening on screen. It's widely known that most of the crew was just as strung out as the characters on screen, which in a way discounts the "genius" of this film. I just imagine that when this film was met with such critical praise, Hopper and Fonda had to feel like little boys who got away with stealing candy from the general store.

Nonetheless, you can't discount the impact this film made. Although at moments you may think to yourself, "What's the point?" you can't help but see what a new style of filmmaking this was. This film help usher in a whole new wave of counterculture filmmaking that made Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg household names. It probably could be credited as one of the first, truly independent films that made the 70's, in my opinion, the best decade for both films and music.

This film is rated a little bit higher in my books more so for the impact then for the actual entertainment value, but to me it's a must see and highly deserves to be on this list. If anything, to feel the impact of the last shot.

I give Easy Rider 4 out of 5 Steppenwolfs. Read below my quick thoughts on the film from the first time I saw it in February of 2005.


I was a little hesitant on how I would view this movie. I knew not to expect too much (two hippies on motorcycles), so would this bore me? On the other hand, it is on numerous great movies lists. How can a buddy-road movie pull this off? While watching it, I enjoyed myself. It was entertaining, but I really didn't see the big deal about it. But, then the ending happened, and it all came together. As stated in the movie Adaptation, "Get them at the end. It doesn't matter what happens the rest of the movie, but if you got a great ending, then you have yourself a great movie." Once the credits rolled with the great theme-titled song, I actually felt what that time might have felt to a lot of hippies. Or maybe it was that joint I had been smoking the whole time.

Pro: The soundtrack! Oh yeah, and a great performance by Jack Nicholson.

Con: If you didn't live during the 60s/70s and have never done drugs (which I account for on both counts) the whole meaning of the movie might loose you.

#85: A Night at the Opera (1935)

Whenever you think of classic comedic acts, the Marx brothers are on the top of the list with the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. I would dare to say, the first big act of the "talkie" era. It had been a while since I had seen this film, but their use of one-liners and physical comedy had always stayed fresh in my mind. Their sense of comedic chaos was always something I admired, so that's why I was very surprised that I couldn't fully enjoy this film as much as I wanted to. A Night at the Opera attempts to reign in their comedy with plot and story-line, and this is one of the few times that I think this is a bad thing.

Groucho, Chico and Harpo play… well, it's a little confusing what roles they actually play, but through their antics they try to bring two lovers together who are talented opera stars. The boyfriend is trying to catch a break, so the Marx brothers ban together to get rid of the evil, leading tenor so he can become famous. Set mainly in the opera house and a cruise ship, the brothers constantly become intruders and stowaways in the name of love.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and that is a key ingredient. The problem lies in the fact that there are story elements that sometimes completely disregard the existence of the Marx brothers. There are musical numbers with the opera singers that are just plain boring, and even when the Marx brothers are featured in a musical number, it comes across more appropriate for one of their vaudeville shows than for the screen. I was often left just waiting for the comedy to kick back in, and trust me, when it does, it's pretty memorable. It's not really until the last scene where the director lets the Marx brothers do what they do best… create comedic anarchy.

At its core, this is still a very entertaining movie. If you've never seen a Marx brothers film, you'll be pining to see more after this one. It's just that I can't wait to watch Duck Soup (their other film on this list) that is more perfectly bound in what the brothers do best. So, maybe this is a better movie to see first so that you are void of disappointment when you see some of their other films.

If I weren't tempted to fast-forward some scenes, this film would definitely receive a better rating from me, but I only blame the director for stifling such great talent.

I give A Night at the Opera 3 out of 5 crowded cruise rooms.

#86: Platoon (1986)

Oscar Winner:

Best Picture, Best Director, Best Film Editing, Best Sound

As long as there have been movies, the war genre has existed. Many of the early ones, especially the ones that were focused on WWII, were very much American propaganda. As the 70's came along, so did a new whole style of filmmaking. It was never more apparent than the approach to the Vietnam war in the films Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. Several years after those revolutionary films, Platoon came about with what I believe as a more inviting style, yet still maintaing its artistic integrity.

Based on Oliver Stone's actual experience as a volunteer (yep, a volunteer!) in Vietnam, Charlie Sheen plays Chris, a naive college student who quickly learns what a war experience actually is. As the atrocities and violence of the war wage on, Chris begins to discover himself. A battle of good and evil in the form of Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) and Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) force the men within Chris' platoon to choose sides. A war within a war emerges as Stone explores the animalistic nature that comes both from physical and internal battles within man.

If a modern war film can be described as approachable, I think this is it. There are still some very violent and hard-to-watch scenes, but it's the strength of its characters that I believe made it win Best Picture. Especially with Dafoe and Berenger's characters. Dafoe is so hippie-like in his loving spirit and Berenger's is so menacing with his scarred grin, that I was totally shocked not to see them on AFI's list of Heroes and Villains. Their rivalry matches that of Ali and Frazier, and although the material is very dramatic, it's a lot of fun to watch. It's also really entertaining to see all the now famous actors that got their start in this film. There's the great character actor Keith David, Forest Whitaker, Kevin Dillon (Entourage), John C. McGinley (Scrubs), Johnny Depp and many more.

The downfall of Platoon is the use of voiceover. Too many times Stone uses Chris to literally tell us what he is feeling instead of showing us. It's a very gripping film that holds your attention the whole time, but it's not one for me that draws me to come back. That said, I think it's a must see, especially if you like the war genre at all. It's a little bit easier to swallow than other war films and definitely holds up today.

I give Platoon 4 out of 5 night watches.