Review #4: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (list number 27)

Review # 4

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (list number 26)

For the first time in a long time I am purely speechless. So to avoid making this sound as though is was written by Doge I'm gonna keep it short and sweet.

     Much Smith

                                                                                                                     Very Washington

                                                          Wow

“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington's” plot is fairly straightforward: good guy, through a contrived set of circumstances, winds up in the last place you'd ever expect while the bad guys scramble to keep him in his place. Of course the bad guys fail, because this was made in 1939 and it was practically illegal for anything else to happen. Oh, and the good guy gets the girl, but I'm sure you would have figured that one out yourself (again, 1939).

The acting was good, considering overacting seems to have been commonplace back in the day. Of course Jimmy Stewart was great as the honest-to-a-fault Jefferson Smith, and though he could have carried the movie by himself, the supporting cast of characters were both written and performed well enough to compliment the lead. That being said, what struck me most about this film wasn't the acting but the timelessness of the story and it's message: always stand up for what is right, even to your detriment.

I'm gonna stop here to avoid getting on my soapbox, as this movie strikes a cord with my political beliefs.

Story: 2.5/3

-the central plot of Jefferson Smith vs the Establishment is wonderful; his romance on the side is not. I find it far too cliché, though I only take half a point because it wasn't quite as overdone as some other movies I've seen.

Acting: 2.5/3

-Excellent, because Jimmy Stewart.

Music: 1/1

-Not overbearing, so I'm cool with it.

Tone: 2/2

-The David and Goliath hopelessness wasn't overbearing, and though you know Smith has to ultimately succeed (see 1939), it wasn't so obvious that you'll feel the urge to walk away from it.

Production value: 1/1

-Well done. There's nothing I can say bad about it.

After effect: 1/1

-I walked away feeling inspired to take on the machine and set the world right again, so I guess I'll have to award full points.

Total: 10/11

Translated to the ten point scale that's a 9.1, putting it up and over the requirement I have set for movies to be allowed in my 'Top 100' list.

Review #3: High Noon (list number 27)

For the third time in a row I have had to endure annoying background music. Fortunately though, this one's theme was more subdued and they kept it low and quiet throughout. Okay, now that I've got my number one problem out of the way, lemme take a minute to explain just what this movie is.

For those of you that haven't seen it, which I'm gonna assume is all of you, 'High Noon' is a 1952 western starring Gary Cooper as Will Kane, a Marshall that is literally moments away from handing over his badge. But of course he gets word that some guy he'd put away five years ago just got pardoned and is on his way back to town via train. Being Gary Cooper, he decides not to leave town (as he was just about to do with his new bride) and stay until the new Marshall arrives to handle the situation. Problem is, that isn't until the next day, because suspenseful storytelling requires it to be that way. So we watch for the next hour as Kane tries to get up a posse to deal with the freed killer and his gang of hooligans. I say tries because apparently everybody in the town is allergic to confrontation and refuses to help.

I could go on and tell you the rest, but I'm lazy and the movie is on Netflix.

H'okay, let's get down to business. First of all, the music bugged me a bit because they NEVER STOPPED PLAYING IT. Like, ever. And by music I don't just mean instruments; there was an old country western singer that liked to repeat the same lyrics over and over again, like he was OCD and just HAD to get it right before he could move on. Otherwise, this movie was a run-of-the-mill western that only seemed to stand out because it was actually written pretty well. For example, unlike many of Eastwood or the Duke's movies, I was actually unsure whether or not the protagonist would survive (please note that if you don't know who the Duke is, you are required to look it up and watch all of his movies before you are allowed to talk to me again). There was real, palpable despair in Kane's eyes as he wrote his will, and not a little fear, which made the character believable. It showed that he was just a man trying to do the right thing and not some immortal gunslinger that could hit a perfect bulls-eye from well beyond his weapon's operational range.

Now I do need to complain a bit about a few tropes and cliches that reminded me I was watching a cowboy flick from the 50's. First of all, there's the fact that the bad guys couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. (Why yes, I am using a cliché myself. I never said I wasn't a hypocrite.) Secondly, there's this hinted-at love quadrangle that just feels like it was something that was probably overused even back in the day. Lastly, something Kane's new bride does near the end was so predictable I actually would have been more surprised had it not happened. Of course, I can't tell you exactly what that is without spoiling the ending, so I'm not gonna elaborate.

Enough commentary, let's break this down.

Story: 2/3

-while it was a good story, the aforementioned clichés drag it down a bit too much for me to give it full credit.

Acting: 2/3

-much like 'Gone With the Wind,' this movie's acting has to be looked at through the lens of time, and appreciated for what it was. And, since it was fairly good, I can't penalize them much.

Music: 1/1

-Okay, so although it annoyed me, it won two Academy Awards for music alone, so I suppose I have to give credit where it is due.

Tone: 2/2

-as I said before, the movie conveyed a sense of hopelessness that I had never before gotten from a western, and from many films from other genres that are made today (I'm looking at you, 'Die Hard').

Production Value: .5/1

-Meh. It was well done, certainly better than many movies of it's day, but it lacked the flair needed to get full points.

After effect: 1/1

-The resolution satisfied me, and the overall message I walk away with is enough to keep me satisfied for a couple more hours.

Total: 8.5/11

Translated to the ten point scale, that's 7.7, exactly what I rated 'Silence of the Lambs.' And just like 'Silence,' though the movie was good it didn't quite make the mark. However, I must say that it would deserve a place on anyone's list of Best Westerns (not the hotel) and any movie fan's collection.

The Silence of the Lambs (list number 74)

Okay, so if you read the review of 'Gone with the Wind,' you'll know that constantly loud music playing in the background bugs me. A lot. And guess what? 'Silence' is another offender, though its music isn't quite as loud. Now I understand that the music was used to set the overall mood of the movie, and I must admit the creepy tones did compliment the story, it was overused. I mean, come on.

The rest of what I didn't like about this movie has to do with the way it is presented. Now, I’m gonna have a hard time describing this here, but what I mean will become much clearer when I do 'Apocalypse Now' (aka one of my least favorite movies ever). See, the entire film (aside from some of the interactions between Foster and Hopkins) feels like a bad dream. Not a nightmare, mind you; typically those are real enough that you jolt awake feeling like you're about to have a heart attack. No, this thing feels like a bad acid trip thanks to the sensations of uneasiness you get throughout the film. I mean, even when Foster is at the training academy in Quantico it feels as though something sinister could happen at any time. If that was what director Jonathan Demme was going for, then he sure succeeded.

Now for the positives...

First off, the story was good. There was some excitement, a couple of twists, etc. I just can't complain about the narrative itself.

Secondly, Anthony Hopkins. I really shouldn't have to say more, but I guess I will anyway. It seemed as though he was truly born to play the role of Hannibal Lector; his charming Britishness (which is a word now that I say it is) and overall sophistication contrasts well with the doctor's inner demons. Every line, every movement is delivered perfectly, and anyone who says otherwise is clearly as mad as Lector himself.

Third... I don't have one. The fact that it teaches people the proper pronunciation of 'Chianti,' I guess.

Here's the breakdown:

Story: 3/3

-An excellent tale.

Acting: 3/3

-due mainly to Hopkins, but Foster and company did well enough that I won't subtract points.

Music: .5/1

-While the music was well written, I feel as though it should have been turned down a bit at several points along the way.

Tone: .5/2

-I get it, serial killers are creepy, but I really don't need to be reminded of it throughout the entirety of the film.

Production value: 1/1

-Well made for its time period

After effect: .5/1

-It left a lingering feeling of anxiety that was appropriate for a thriller, but the constant bombardment of the creepiness made me somewhat bored with it.

Total: 8.5/11

When translated to a ten point scale, that's a 7.7. So it's a good movie overall, but does not belong on a list of the 100 Greatest Films.

Review #1: Gone with the WInd

I'll start with number 5 on the list: Gone With the Wind.

Okay, so this movie is loooooong, and while that can be a bad thing, this classic is able to keep me entertained (for the most part) throughout. There are sad moments, funny moments, sad moments, happy moments, and did I mention sad moments? Sheesh, half the movie is a downer, but that's clearly intended and to be expected in what I would call an 'epic tragedy.'

The acting was... well... let's just say I don't feel it would work that well for a modern movie. It all felt so theatrical and overdone that sometimes I thought I was watching a play. Vivian Leigh (Scarlet) is probably the biggest offender here, but I can forgive it because it was considered to be the norm during that time period. Two standouts I do have to mention, though: Clark Gable (Rhett Butler) and Hattie McDaniel (Mammie). Gable is just perfect for his role; playing Butler is effortless for him and he makes it one of the most memorable performances I've seen in cinema. McDaniel, though playing a somewhat smaller role, outshines anyone she shares the screen with (excepting Gable; seriously, the guy's a boss). It's no wonder that she was the first the first black person (not just woman) to win an Academy Award.

The music, I feel, is overdone; it is loud and dramatic throughout, even during some dialogue. However, I cannot dock very many points because it is a product of its time period.

Now for the ever-important score (because being rated by me is the most important thing that can happen to a movie). While I may have some personal issues with “Gone With the Wind,' there's just nothing I can find that is objectively wrong with it. However the acting, cinematography, score, story, and pacing are superb (once you take in consideration the time in which the film was made), so I therefore cannot give this masterpiece anything less than a perfect 10/10. It belongs on the top 100 list.

Note: 10/10 does not mean I love the movie; I would actually give it a subjective score of about 6/10 because I just don't like it all that much.

Introduction

Okay people, since I've started this medical school journey I've either had no time for anything (90% of the time) or time to kill (weekends after exams). During this past lull/break I've come up with an idea: I'm going to review all of AFI's 100 Greatest Movies (2007) and determine how good those films really are. I rate films on a 10 point scale, and nothing less than a 9 should belong on a 'Greatest Movies' list.
I won't be going in any particular order, and movies I've seen recently I'll review without actually rewatching them. My short reviews will be posted here, probably an average of one a week.
As I go, I'd love to hear everybody's opinions on the movies in question.