100 Movies in 100 Days: COMPLETE

2,000 movies in 10 years. I still remember that warm March day in 2001 when I decided to start keeping track of the movies I watched. I had no clue how that one idea would shape such a significant portion of my life. I still remember being excited when my official count hit "10," "50," and eventually, "100." And now, exactly 10 years later, I hit 2,000.

As I sit on this milestone, I want to briefly look back before looking ahead. Completing 100 movies in 100 days was not easy. Here are a few thoughts about the whole thing:

Looking Back

1. This was significantly harder than expected. When I thought about doing this and writing about it in a blog, I imagined having the time to craft every entry perfectly to create discussion about movies. This quickly got put on the back burner. There were days when it was all I could do to write something fast, and start the next movie. I didn't have the time (or the energy) to write as intentionally as I'd hoped.
2. I got so many great recommendations from people, but I only managed to watch a few of those. I'll definitely see all the movies recommended to me, but sadly, they weren't all able to be part of the 100 in 100.
3. I've been humbled by the response to this. This blog had well over 1,000 page views from 10 countries from around the world (someone even viewed the blog on their iPad, which I think is extremely cool) I've had comments on the blog, comments on facebook, and messages sent in all forms about the various movies I've watched. I want to thank everyone who read or commented or even thought about movies differently because of this. You made this whole thing enjoyable for me.

Looking Ahead

1. 2,000 movies is really just the beginning. I'm stunned at how many great movies I still haven't seen (it's embarrassing). There's no way I can keep this pace up- it'll be well after 2016 before I hit 3,000, but I need to be more intentional about the types of films I see.
2. Here's some of the goals I have for the next thousand movies:
• See every single film to have ever won an Academy Award
• Make this list an accurate count of not only the last 10 years, but of every film I've seen in my life (I have to go back to pre-2001 and rewatch a lot of those movies I've seen, but aren't in the count)
• See every film on all those AFI Top 100 Lists
• Ensure I've seen at least 100 films from every decade (for example, I'm not even close to 100 movies from the 1930s)

Well, I'm not going to belabor this any more. 100 movies down, and I'm officially done. Interestingly, I don't think I'm going to take days or weeks off from watching movies. I'm just going to watch them only when I actually feel like it. In fact, after working 55+ hours this week, I actually think a movie sounds good right about now...

Day 100- Movie 100. Inception (2010)

Before I even start talking about this movie, I have a few things to say first- 1. Somehow, I managed to do it. I successfully watched 100 movies in 100 days. If I had to describe my emotions at this moment, I can only describe it as "relief." 2. I'm going to write a longer entry tomorrow (it will be my last) to reflect a bit on this challenge, as well as the fact that I managed to watch 2,000 different movies in exactly 10 years. So, I'm saving some of the good stuff for tomorrow.

On another note, I was driving back home today (about a 1.5 hour drive), and the whole time, I kept thinking to myself- If I get into a car accident and have to go to the hospital, I'm going to be so pissed I didn't get to finish that last movie. Luckily, I made it home safe, and I was able to conclude this long endeavor.

I thought quite a bit about what movie should be my 100th (and 2,000th). I thought about going for a classic, or an unexpected one, but I ultimately chose Inception for a few reasons. Mainly, because this was my favorite movie of 2010 (I admit I've only seen about 65 films released in 2010, so there's always a chance something could top this). I thought this was an innovative, intelligent, thought-provoking, game-changing movie. I saw it in theaters, but I never got it into my "official" count.

The main reason I loved this movie was because Christopher Nolan managed to create an intelligent, original movie that managed to break out in a big way. So many "blockbusters" rely on the lowest common denominator- trying to appeal to the widest possible audience while not offending or frustrating anyone. That's a cowardly way to make a movie. Nolan took a concept that was extremely complex and created a movie with the belief that the audience was intelligent enough to follow along and not get lost. He didn't pander or simplify the film for the sake of "stupid" American audiences. I love that he did that. Movies can be entertaining while still challenging us, and Inception does a fantastic job of proving that point.

The movie blends that amazing initial premise with an incredible cast and some of the most impressive scenes I've seen in a long, long time. I'll never forget that long, slow-motion fall of the van into the river. The gravity-defying fight scenes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt are among my favorite scenes of all time. They were stunning. The ice fortress battle sequences were amazing in a very James Bond-ish way. And of course, the controversial, brilliant ending. This movie blew me away.

For those reasons, I decided to choose this as my 100th movie. Hollywood is a business that copies success. The copies are rarely even close to the original, but they try it anyway. I sincerely hope Inception inspires Hollywood to take more chances on challenging, complex, unconventional films. Playing it safe creates movies like Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son. Movies shouldn't be safe- they should push the boundaries of our thinking. Inception represents why I love going to the movies. I would give this film an 8.5/10.

While I'm going to write much more tomorrow, I do want to spend a few minutes today discussing this whole thing. It was significantly more difficult than I expected. I'm completely relieved this is over. It was fun (and stressful), but I'm looking forward to going back to watching movies ONLY when I feel like it. They say that too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and apparently, that is true for movies, too. Okay, I'm probably going to be a bit long-winded tomorrow, so I don't want to tire you out today. Check back here tomorrow for my FINAL post (and don't worry, after that, I'm done clogging up your facebook news feeds!)

Day 96- Movie 99. Love and Other Drugs (2010)

I was surprised at the depth to Love and Other Drugs. The trailers made this look like a fairly lightweight romantic comedy, when it's really much more of a romantic dramedy. Instead of just a love story, this film also has some powerful commentary on the nature of loving people with incurable diseases and the shadier side of the pharmaceutical industry. This is a romantic movie that was about more than just "will they or won't they?" I appreciated that.

The story follows a pharmaceutical rep (Jake Gyllenhaal) who falls for a strong, determined woman (Anne Hathaway) who challenges him and differs greatly from the other women he's been with. Okay, so that does sound like your typically cliche-filled romantic comedy. However, there's much more to this movie than the storyline. It actually depicts relationships in a very adult, complicated, realistic way. I appreciated the attempt of this film to portray relationships in all their complex glory. No one ever said being in an adult relationship was easy, and that comes across in this film.

I also enjoyed the look at pharmaceutical sales. That isn't the most open, honest business, and it was interesting to watch an insider's view of what it is like. I thought that added an interesting element to this movie. So many romantic movies feature the leads in throwaway careers that seem implausible. This movie put the characters into a real time period, surrounded by actual events. I thought that lent some credibility to the film.

The movie relies greatly on the chemistry between Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway. I've always liked Gyllenhaal, back to his Donnie Darko days. I really think he has the talent to become of the biggest movie stars in the world. I thought he gave a good, charismatic performance here. He works well with Hathaway. The two showed some decent chemistry and played off each other quite well. The supporting actors were good, as well, with strong performances from Hank Azaria, Oliver Platt, and Judy Greer.

I suppose I can understand why some people wouldn't like this movie. It does occasionally push the boundaries of realism a bit too far, and certain scenes do appear a bit forced. The sex scenes could be viewed as too much for some, and the ending is a bit trite. However, compared to many other similar films, I thought Love and Other Drugs worked surprisingly well. I enjoyed watching it, and I was able to get into the story and the characters. I'd give this film a 7.5/10.

So, this is my 99th movie. On a positive note, I hit 99 on day 96. That's not bad. Unfortunately, it would have been nice to finish this thing off today. As I've mentioned previously, I'm swamped the next four days. I could easily not have time for a movie, but I'm going to try to ensure that doesn't happen (can you imagine if I missed it by 1 movie?) We'll see what happens, but I'd like to finish this off sooner, rather than later. Stay tuned...

Day 96- Movie 98. Bottle Shock (2008)

I'm actually a big fan of Bottle Shock. It is an interesting little movie about how the California Wine industry challenged the Paris wine industry and in the process, changed the way people thought about good wine. It features a very good cast, strong performances, and is a very entertaining movie. It is a lighthearted, funny film, and I enjoyed it very much.

It was interesting to watch this film, knowing it is based on a true story- specifically, the now famous "Judgment of Paris" wine tasting competition. It's also an underdog tale- how small California wineries went up against the historically superior French wines. In addition, it's a story of some down-on-their-luck individuals and how they overcome the odds to succeed.

The cast really makes this movie. I liked Chris Pine in the lead role. I don't think he gave a fantastic performance, but it was a strong showing, and I genuinely liked him in the film. Alan Rickman and Dennis Farina are fantastic. I loved their scenes together. Bill Pullman was a brilliant addition to the cast. I've always liked Pullman, and I think he worked very, very well in the film. I also was glad to see Freddy Rodriguez (he's an underrated actor), Eliza Dushku, and Rachael Taylor. The entire cast works well together, and I had a very fun time watching them all interact.

Bottle Shock is interesting because of how it blends wine, love, drama, and humor together into this wonderful little package. This is a movie that is effortless to enjoy. Unlike many movies, you don't have to work to get inside it. It seems lightweight on the surface, although it has many layers underneath. I do wish the movie moved a bit quicker, and it could have used an even better performance by Pine, but it still does so much right that these flaws are minimized.

It was incredibly hard not to want to drink some wine after seeing this movie. In fact, that's exactly what I did. Upon finishing this film, I went to pick up a bottle (and consequently, some KFC- that scene with Alan Rickman made me want some fried chicken really bad) and I am drinking wine as I type this up. I've never really understood the sophisticated side of wine, but it's fascinating to watch that passion and expertise unfold on screen. There's truly something magical about the process of making great wine, and that comes across extremely well in this film. There's also some absolutely jaw-dropping cinematography of Napa Valley and the beautiful rolling hills of wine country.

Wine enthusiastics should like this movie, but anyone could enjoy the true story and the interesting characters presented in this film. I very much enjoyed this movie, and would give it a 7.5/10.

Well, I am only 2 movies away. That is a huge relief. I'd like to be finished today, but I'm not sure I have the energy to hit up two more movies. I may be able to get one more in, but it looks like I'll have to find time during this upcoming week for that last movie. I'm very relieved this is all coming to an end, and I'm sure people will appreciate when I stop clogging their news feeds with these posts. Four days left and two movies to go!

Day 95- Movie 97. Monsters (2010)

I am extremely impressed with Monsters and what the filmmakers were able to achieve with a far less than $1 million budget. I've read that there were only two crew members and many of the scenes were unscripted. This movie is definitely a very small, independent film, but it feels significantly bigger than that. It is a unique, unforgettable film. This is a monster movie that is mostly about the humans- the "monsters" are important, but certainly are secondary.

The story begins with an explanation that six years ago, a spacecraft returning to Earth with samples to prove alien life existed broke up in the atmosphere. Soon after, new life forms began to appear along the U.S.-Mexico border. The area is bordered off as an Infected Zone. The story follows a photographer (Scoot McNairy) an a tourist (Whitney Able) who are trying to make their way back to the United States. To do so, they have to get dangerously close to the infected area.

The movie focuses mostly on these two characters. In so many monster movies, character development takes a backseat to the special effects. This movie (perhaps due to its budget) focuses almost completely on these two characters, and the alien monsters are really in the background. This works because the characters are interesting, complex, and realistic. You never feel like these are the typical cardboard cutouts that appear in so many movies. Their story alone is interesting and engaging. In some ways, the movie unfolds almost like an adventure film or a travel movie. It's certainly difficult to characterize exactly what kind of movie this is.

Now, the movie isn't only about these two. There are a number of scenes with the alien creatures. The special effects are a bit weak, but considering the budget of this film, they are pretty astounding. I never felt like the effects detracted from the film at all. Sure, with a bigger budget, the creatures would have looked even more amazing, but they are still impressive as-is. I loved how the creatures were portrayed in this film. The scene at the gas station is one of the most powerful, moving, memorable scenes I've watched in a long time.

I enjoyed watching Monsters because it felt refreshingly unique. It is a new twist on a familiar genre. The movie is unlike anything else that's happening right now- it is a character-focused alien/monster movie. I suppose you could make some comparisons to District 9, but this film does enough to differentiate itself. In addition, the ending is pretty spectacular. It is a controversial, debate-inducing conclusion that leaves the film on a high note.

Monsters would have been better with a slightly bigger budget and a little tighter script. However, it's amazing what was achieved considering the limitations of the cast and crew. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. If you go into this film expecting your typical alien movie, you'll probably be disappointed. On the other hand, approaching this with an open mind will allow you to see the uniqueness of this film. I very much enjoyed it, and will give Monsters a surprisingly strong 7.5/10.

I don't want to spoil the ending, but if you've seen this movie, what did you think about the conclusion? You can send me a message if you'd like, because I'm interested in what you thought of it but don't want to give anything anyway.

Day 95- Movie 96. The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)

The Secret in Their Eyes is another movie recommended to me (the recommendations I've had have all been solid, solid movies) and it is a great film. It's a very well deserving 2009 Academy Award winner for Best Foreign Film. The movie is an extremely well made crime drama whose romantic elements play an equal (or larger) role in the final product. This is a movie that doesn't necessarily do much brand new, but it executes beautifully. This is a well crafted and expertly made film.

The story is about a legal counselor (Ricardo Darin) who reflects back on the case that he could never get out of his mind- the rape and murder of a young woman. This is the central thread of the story, but there's so many others that are weaved together beautifully. Perhaps the most powerful is the story of his unrequited love for his superior (Soledad Villamil), who plays a key role in the investigation of the aforementioned crime. This movie expertly blends crime drama, romance, and thriller together in a powerful, memorable package.

What I really enjoyed about this movie is its layers of complexity. This is a movie I imagine could be watched again and again, and you'd pick up on different elements with every viewing. It is a movie full of symbolism and meaning. The story unfolds slowly, but has clear momentum as it builds towards its surprising conclusion. The film does occasionally move too slowly and does feature a few outlandish moments, but for the most part, this is a realistic, enjoyable movie that gives you a great deal to think about. I sometimes complain about movies being too lightweight- you don't have that problem here- The Secret in Their Eyes is a heavy, deep film.

This is a film that was made with great care and intelligence. It deals with thought-provoking, complex, and occasionally disturbing themes. It never panders to the audience as it tells a very film noir type story. It reminded me of the films that were made in the United States in the 40s, of which too few are made today. I really liked this movie a great deal. I will give The Secret in Their Eyes a great 8/10.

Well, I'm now +1 movies. I have 5 days to watch 4 movies, and today isn't over yet. I admit I could easily finish this day off without watching another movie,  but I'd love to go up two today. I'll see if I can muster up enough energy to knock off a third film today. As far as this one, I'll pass the recommendation on- see this movie- you won't be disappointed (as long as you don't hate subtitles)

Day 95- Movie 95. G.I. Jane (1997)

I really believe that G.I. Jane is an underrated movie. I'm not suggesting that it's a great movie, but it is a good one, and I feel like it gets a really bad rap. Demi Moore actually "won" a Razzie Award for Worst Actress, which I think it a bit ridiculous. This movie isn't perfect, but I thoroughly enjoyed it regardless. It is a solid, entertaining movie.

What I like about this movie is it's your classic underdog story. Demi Moore's character is given the opportunity to break the gender barrier in the Navy SEALS, but she has to go through hell to do that. Director Ridley Scott does a terrific job of portraying the intense, miserable training that causes 60% of recruits to drop out. The training is far beyond what most people believe themselves capable of enduring. I myself couldn't imagine the psychological and physical torment that must be overcome to survive the training.

So, we watch Moore as she faces sexism around ever corner, which only adds to the already nearly insurmountable odds against her. It's always fun watching a story about an individual willing to tough it out, no matter the challenges before them. The Navy SEALS training is brutal, and Scott does a terrific job of making this come to life. That aspect of the film is outstanding.

Moore's performance was really not all that bad. Sure, she doesn't have many terrific moments, but the performance is mostly believable. She gets a bad rap for this film. It's impressive how much she bulked up for the role, and even though she used stunt doubles for many of her scenes, she still put forth a great deal of effort, and I appreciate that. Viggo Mortensen is good as the Master Chief, and I liked Anne Bancroft as a U.S. Senator. The cast is really quite good.

I don't know, maybe I should have hated this movie like a lot of people seem to. I simply couldn't do it. It is an impressive story about a woman facing overwhelming odds, and to a certain degree, overcoming them. It offers a vivid portrayal of some of the most intense military training on the planet, and even throws in a real-combat scene as well. This isn't a perfect movie, but Scott keeps the film moving so that it rarely drags, even with a 2+ hours run time. I'd give this film a 7.5/10.

Well, I now have 5 movies left. I knew I was getting close, but it didn't really hit me until this moment. That's not very bad at all. I'll be able to do at least one (and hopefully two) more before the day, so I should actually get very close to the end goal.

Day 94- Movie 94. Faster (2010)

Before I make any criticisms about this film, I want to say that I'm so thankful that The Rock (do I have to call him Dwayne Johnson?) is back to making action films. This is where he belongs. I know no one wants to be typecast, but if I see Johnson in one more children's film, I'm going to scream. He needs to be in movies where he has a gun and is shooting people.

That's a fact. It's just not fun watching Johnson make a complete idiot out of himself in kid-friendly fare. I sincerely hope he's gotten that out of his system or fired his agent, because those movie suck. It's time for Johnson to return to action. I was interested to see the last time he was in a legitimate action movie. So, let's look at Johnson's previous films to see the last time-

• The Other Guys (2010)- totally doesn't count. If you've seen the movie, you know why. Plus, this is a comedy first
• Why Did I Get Married Too? (2010)- didn't know he was in this. Not an action movie
• Tooth Fairy (2010)- Not even going to mention it because it's awful
• Planet 51 (2009)- stupid animated film
• Race to Witch Mountain (2009)- kid's movie
• Get Smart (2008)- comedy first
• The Game Plan (2007)- sports comedy
• Gridiron Game (2006)- sports drama
• Southland Tales (2006)- not an action movie
• Doom (2005)- and here it is. 5 years, and the last action movie he made was absolutely terrible

So, as you can see, it's been far too long. I was very, very excited for The Rock to return to action movies. Unfortunately, the movie he chose was Faster. There's nothing especially horrible about this movie, except that it's a simple, generic movie that features nothing new or particularly exciting. It simply rehashes ideas from other films that were better. Sure, it does try to throw in a few curve balls, but these can't save the movie.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this film is that Johnson has so very few lines. The vast majority of the time, he stands around looking tough and angry. We wanted him back in action movies, but we also wanted to hear him actually utter some words now and then. He had too little to say, which I found boring and disappointing.

The supporting cast is good. We have Billy Bob Thornton and Carla Gugino as cops, Tom Berenger in a worthless 30 second appearance, Maggie Grace (Lost!) with a decent role, Mike Epps, Moon Bloodgood, Jennifer Carpenter (Dexter!), and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Lost!). Two actors from Lost = bonus points for the film.

Anyway, this film does have some decent action scenes, a few nice surprises, and several thrilling moments. However, these aren't enough to overcome a mostly recycled story, little character development, and overall, a general feeling of silliness. I wish I could have liked this movie, but it didn't do enough to win me over. Welcome back to action, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson- now try to focus on making an actual good movie. I'll give this a 6/10.

Well, friends, we're at the last weekend before this whole thing comes to a close. I have 6 days to watch 6 movies. I expect to get close (or finish!) this weekend, because I'm absolutely swamped Monday to Thursday next week. I wish I had the entire weekend free, but I should at least have a good shot of hitting my goal. Let's hope I can do it.

Day 93- Movie 93. Saw: The Final Chapter (2010)

I'm going to start this out with a rant- I hated this movie before I saw it, simply because the title is so stupid. Technically, this film, the seventh in the series is called Saw 3D. That's just about the dumbest title I've ever heard. I hate whomever came up with that. This should have been called Saw VI, because that's how every other movie was titled. Saw 3D makes no sense at all. It's completely stupid and pointless. Who cares if it's in 3D- no one watching at home is going to see that extra dimension. So, I'm just going to refer to this movie as Saw: The Final Chapter. I really don't understand why people can't get movie titles right. Here's another example- those morons who write the title Se7en. Have you seen this? The movie is Seven. If you write it like that, the film would be pronounced "SeSEVENen" God, people can be so freaking stupid, I almost can't stand it.

Okay, enough of that. This movie is the seventh film in the franchise, and I have to admit I stopped caring about these movies years ago. You have to have an encyclopedia to remember all the various storylines and connections between the different movies. I tried to remind myself who was who for the first four movies, but I eventually just gave up- it wasn't worth the added effort to me. There's too many story lines that all add up to very little. Every film is just too similar to the previous ones, with the only real difference being different ways to watch people die. Not that exciting.

This movie is supposedly the last (Please, for the love of God, let this be the last one) and tries to tie up all the loose ends. None of this was particularly exciting to me. It was hard for me to stay focused because I felt like I'd seen this all before. This movie plays out exactly as you'd expect- a lot of people die in various creative ways, some people live, and there's a twist near the end. The formula has been done before, and it's tired.

I didn't always dislike this franchsie. The first film was remarkably good, and the next few films were decent. However, the franchise soon ran out of steam, and yet, we continued to get movie after movie, year after year. It's time for this franchise to die. It all just seems so pointless and uninteresting. I didn't like this movie much at all. I would give this movie a 5.5/10.

I thought this film was very sloppy. It felt like the major themes of the previous movies were thrown out the window completely. It felt like they weren't really trying anymore. That might be appropriate, since I was barely paying attention. This movie wasn't good in the least.

Day 92- Movie 92. Restrepo (2010)

2010 was a very good year for documentaries. I really enjoyed Exit Through the Gift Shop, and Restrepo was a really, really good movie as well. And yet, neither of those films won the Academy Award for Best Documentary- that honor went to Inside Job. I'll have to check that movie out- I hope it's exceptionally good, because either of the previously two mentioned movies would have been deserving.

Restrepo follows the Second Platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, chronicling them for an entire year. It is pretty amazing the level of access the filmmakers were granted. We get to see behind the scenes of the war in Afghanistan (and especially the Korangal Valley), to catch a glimpse of what it is like fighting and trying to survive in what CNN called "the most dangerous place in the world." The film does a good job of portraying various aspects of military life- not only the frightening, thrilling aspect of combat, but also the monotony of boring, slow days and the bond of military brotherhood shared by these brave young men. It was fascinating to watch it all unfold.

I liked how the film treated Restrepo, both the place and the man. It served as a narrative thread which held the entire movie together. I was confused about why the movie was called this (even more so after the first 10 minutes), but I quickly realized the importance of the name. I really liked that aspect of the film.

I also loved how the filmmakers simply let the movie speak for itself. It didn't appear to have an ulterior motives or specific political point it was trying to make. This wasn't a film about messages as much as it was about understanding and respecting more what our armed services are doing overseas. This film reminded me how young many of the soldiers are, and yet how much bravery and loyalty to the United States they show by voluntarily putting themselves in harm's way. I am a fan of anything that brings more attention to the sacrifices our military men and women make, and it was one of my favorite aspects of this movie.

In addition, the movie does a terrific job of portraying why the war in Afghanistan is so difficult. From the fighting landscape to the remoteness of many locations, to the difficulty in dealing with the locals, I had a new appreciation for the wars we're waging in the Middle East. The scenes about the cow really drove that point home for me. There's no easy answers, no definitive solution to the problems facing our troops there.

So, in conclusion, Restrepo is a very well made, entertaining, interesting look behind the scenes of the war in Afghanistan. It doesn't have a political message, it's simply a fascinating look in one of the world's most deadliest places. I very much enjoyed this movie, and give it a strong 7.5/10. In fact, I'm a bit surprised this movie didn't pick up the Academy Award for Best Documentary- it is certainly deserving.

Okay- I'm still on pace. 8 days to go, 8 movies left to watch. I'm getting a bit antsy for this to conclude. I am actually surprised I'm this close- there were weeks where I thought I had no chance. It is exciting, but challenging being so close, yet still hours and hours of movie watching away.

Day 91- Movie 91. Despicable Me (2010)

2010 has to be known as one of the better years for animated films. With Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon alone, the year could be considered fantastic. I was interested to watch Despicable Me to see if it would further the belief that this was a great year of animated films. Unfortunately, I was horribly disappointed in this movie. I thought it was boring, shallow, and poorly written. I didn't like this movie at all. I'm shocked that it made so much money at the box office.

The story follows Gru, a supervillain, determined to steal the moon. His life is changed when he adopts three girls to use in one of his diabolical plots. I actually had a very hard time believing the story. Yes, almost all animated movies are completely unrealistic, but this movie just pushed those boundaries too far. Stealing pyramids and the moon seemed weird and uninteresting. The whole thing just seemed so stupid to me. I'll say this- I found Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs to be a more believable movie, and that film featured a spaghetti tornado and giant pancakes falling from the sky. This film was just so poorly written that it was hard to pretend anything here wasn't completely ridiculous.

I don't think I'm spoiling the movie if I mention that the main focus is about Gru and how his life is changed for the better by these three girls. The movie telegraphed this in all the commercials, and it's amazingly predictable. I understand and even support "bad" characters turning their lives around, but what was it in this film that led Gru to make that change? He hated the three little girls, who were very annoying to him. They go to an amusement park for a few hours, and suddenly he loves them. I was never convinced of his change of heart. Characters need to grow and develop over the course of the film, but Gru's transformation was completely and totally unbelievable to me (and don't try to convince me that the piggy bank scene did it, because that was even less believable).

I'll also say that I pretty much hated Gru's stupid minions. This might be partially because of the relentless ad campaign (I swear I saw previews for this movie for a good year before it actually came out), and it's partially because they were a cheap effort to make the movie seem "cute" and "funny." I just didn't buy it, as I thought that the minions were mostly pointless and stupid.

The whole film felt very weak and flat. There weren't very many emotionally powerful moments. This film especially pales when you compare it to Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon, two films that proved animated movies can tell original, unique stories while also hitting the audience on a deeply emotional level. Despicable Me simply does not compare on any level to those films. It's a movie composed of recycled themes and ideas from other movies, instead of creating new stories or ideas itself.

I can't believe I'm the only person who strongly disliked this movie, but maybe I am. I did a little research and I was surprised how many critics loved this film. There were a few dissenters, but it was almost universally praised. I honestly can't fathom how so many people liked this movie. I found this to be a boring, completely forgettable attempt to cash it on perceived "cuteness" instead of telling a truly compelling story. I bet 90% of the people who try to defend this movie would say- "But the little girl was so cute!" Cuteness doesn't make a great movie. That would be compelling characters, exciting stories, emotional highs and lows, etc. Despicable Me has far too few of those. I'm giving this movie a 5.5/10.

So, if you loved this movie, I'd be glad to hear why. I'm curious how you think it compares to Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon.

Day 90- Movie 90. Goin' South (1978)

The main reason I wanted to watch this movie is because of Jack Nicholson. I had no idea Nicholson had ever directed a movie, and yet, here's one of them. I wanted to see what he could do behind the camera, because he's clearly one of the greatest actors of all time. Using Goin' South as a sample size of one, I would advise him to stick to acting. It's probably no coincidence that Nicholson has only directed 3 films, and none in the last 20 years.

This movie is about an outlaw (Jack Nicholson) about to be hanged for his crimes. At the last second, he is saved by a woman (Mary Steenburgen) who agrees to marry him (which apparently sets him free). The two clash as they dig for gold on her small homestead. The story seems like it would be interesting. Comedy westerns are a pretty rare genre, so I was excited to see how this one unfolded. Unfortunately, this is just a bad movie.

I hate to blame Nicholson, but as the star and director, he deserves the majority of the blame. The script wasn't exactly fantastic, but it was certainly better than this film turned out to be. Nicholson simply doesn't seem to be that talented of a director. This movie moves almost at a glacial pace. I lost almost complete interest about halfway through the movie, and then it became a fight to keep me interested for the last 40 minutes. It was a struggle. The movie is just a mess of scenes that all seem too familiar to the one that came before. The story does progress, but so slowly that it is almost imperceptible. I was waiting desperately for something to happen- anything to happen, really- and when I got my wish, I was disappointed in that, too.

The one bright spot in this film is that it was the film debut of Mary Steenburgen. I've always liked Steenburgen, and I think she delivers a very strong performance here. Although the movie all around her is weak, unfunny, and boring, she shines in almost every scene she's in. It's no surprise that this film was only nominated for 1 award (total), and that was for a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture Acting Debut- Female. Steenburgen didn't win, but she was the sole bright spot.

That's a shame, because the cast is impressive on paper. You have Nicholson in the lead, with supporting roles going to Christopher Lloyd, Danny DeVito, John Belushi, and Ed Begley Jr. None of them make much of an impact on the film, however. Their roles were too small to too stupid to matter.

I hate to be negative about this movie because I respect Nicholson so much, but this is simply a movie that missed its mark completely. It's a joyless, boring, ineffective movie that felt like a complete waste of time. The best scenes all involve Steenburgen (and it is genuinely fun to watch her and Nicholson interact), but these are too few. This movie had a good idea at its core, but almost everything about this movie is a disappointment. I didn't like this Goin' South very much at all. I'll give it a generous 5/10.

Well, so far, so good. 10 days left, and I have 10 movies to go. I'm getting a bit anxious, being so close. It's pretty amazing to think that I've watched 90 movies since December 1. In some ways, the next 10 will be the hardest. I had to force myself to sit down and watch a movie tonight, and I bet that feeling will stick with me the rest of the week. I love watching movies, but my God, I need a break.

Day 89- Movie 89. Roxanne (1987)

And there it is. I'm finally caught back up. It took me 41 days to do it, but I'm back where I need to be. I'm going to sit and soak this in for a minute. It certainly was not easy to do. At one point, I was 15 or 16 movies behind pace. The last few weeks have been a furious dash to get back to this point. At one point, I watched 10 movies in 3 days to do it. I've seen so many movies the last few weeks that they are all starting to blur together for me. And yet, at least for tonight, none of that matters, because I'm back on pace. This still doesn't guarantee I'll make it, but today, I have 11 movies to watch in the next 11 days. I like those odds.

Now to the movie. Roxanne is a movie I've seen a few times, but is one of those films I haven't seen since I started keeping track of my movies back in 2001. I really, really liked this movie a great deal back then, and I was interested to see how I felt about it now. I actually liked it just as much, even with the passing of time. This is a unique, funny, touching movie that feels very different than most romantic comedies. I'm not a huge fan of the romantic comedy genre, mostly because it's so easy to make a completely redundant, predictable film. However, when a movie manages to do something a bit different, I tend to respect that all the more. This is one of my favorite romantic comedies.

While Steve Martin is undeniably very funny, I oftentimes feel like his brand of comedy has trouble maintaining itself for the length of an entire film. It feels like he's best in short sketches or in stand up acts. This film proved that belief wrong, as Martin manages to be funny throughout the entire film. This might be my favorite Martin film. He's so memorable as C.D. Bales, a man with a gigantic nose, but also a very intelligent, athletic, warmhearted individual. He's a terrific guy in every regard, but he's plagued by his one seeming fault. I loved that aspect of this movie (which owes a great deal to its source, "Cyrano de Bergerac.")

I think that's true of many people- they are wonderful in so many ways, but have one perceived fault or flaw that prevents them from achieving their full potential. No one is perfect, but you have to embrace your imperfections and learn to love yourself anyway if you want to be truly happy. That's a terrific message, and it is delivered in an entertaining way in this film. C.D. is a fascinating character, and one of the main reasons I liked this film so much. Martin is terrific in the role, and really makes this movie.

Roxanne has so many classic scenes. I love how Martin jumps, climbs, and otherwise defies gravity in such a nonchalant way. I laughed every time he does this. The scene in the bar where he has to come up with 20 jokes about his nose (and actually comes up with more) is one of the best of the film. I laughed out loud when he falls out of the tree. I just found this movie to be so fun and enjoyable. I love when a movie is effortlessly entertaining.

I know many people might not agree with me, but I really, really like this movie. I think it delivers a unique film in a genre that is too often stale and safe. It features memorable scenes, a great performance by Martin, and had me continually laughing throughout it. This is one of those films that I don't care what others might think- to me, it's a great movie. I would give this film an 8/10.

As excited as I am to be caught up, I understand that I still have a long way to go. 11 in 11 seems easy, but as I mentioned before, I'm probably not able to watch movies for four of those days. 11 in 7 is a little bit more difficult, especially when 5 of those 7 are weekdays. I admit I'm pretty anxious for this all to be over. I'd love to have ended this early, so I can go back to watching movies only when I FEEL like it. That's not going to happen, but at least I've given myself a shot to pull this off. 11 days left, my friends...

Day 89- Movie 88. Frankenstein (1931)

I'll be honest, I am not in the mood to watch movies today. I'm not sure why (possibly because I've watched 88 movies in the last three months), but it's just a struggle today. If I watch one more, I'll finally be caught up, but even that only provides the slightest bit of motivation. Anyway, I watched Frankenstein, one of the most influential monster movies of all time. This is the film that created the image of Frankenstein's monster that we have today- big forehead, bolts in neck, slow moving, etc. Some of those images didn't exist before this film. It was a major departure from Mary Shelley's book (which is very good, and I highly recommend). Despite those departures, this is a very good movie.

This film features so many iconic moments that you'd probably recognize even if you haven't seen the movie. The look of Frankenstein's monster, the mad scientist's lab, villagers with torches, and other scenes are so famous. This movie also features one of the most recognized movie lines of all time- Dr. Frankenstein's cry of "It's alive. It's alive. It's alive!" It was really cool seeing that moment unfold on screen.

There's a few things about this movie that I liked, but also had some struggles with. Here's an example (and if you don't want to know anything about the movie, here's a SPOILER WARNING for you)- there is a very disturbing scene where Frankenstein's monster approaches a small girl playing with flowers near a lake. He eventually picks the girl up, and throws her in the water, causing her to drown. This scene is awful, but so powerful in the course of the film. It was so important, yet was cut from the movie for decades because of censorship issues in the 1930s. So, this is something I liked about the movie- putting such a horrific image in the film, but I hated that it was cut from the film for so long.

In addition, the movie ends on a more happy note, which was completely not how the movie should have ended. Again, this was the filmmakers succumbing to censorship pressure, so the film copped out by having the film end on a slightly happier note- instead of tragically, which is how it should have ended. The movie does a great job of creating a sinister, dark, creepy atmosphere, but doesn't execute fully on it. The movie could have been more creepy, more horrifying, and therefore, more memorable.

I also appreciated that this movie played the whole thing ultra-seriously. There's no winking at the audience or lightheartedness in this film. It approaches the subject in a serious, tragic manner, and tries hard to follow through on that. It could have come across as silly, but everything is delivered with seriousness. Before the film begins, one of the actors comes out "on stage" and warns the audience about the frightening nature of the film they are about to watch. I loved that, but I just wish the film pushed the boundaries even further, instead of giving in on certain issues.

Still, Frankenstein is an incredibly influential film. It's one of the earlier monster movies, and one of the most important. I enjoyed the movie very much, and I'll give it a 7.5/10.

Ugh, I really don't feel like watching another movie, although I really need to do so. I'll try to get focused, and see you back here a little later.

Day 88- Movie 87. Grand Illusion (1937)

Grand Illusion is a French anti-war film set during World War I. It is regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, and a classic of world cinema. It was actually the first foreign film to ever be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards . It is a poignant, interesting movie that struck me as very pure. So many movies today have lost that purity because art has been sacrificed for the almighty dollar. This is a movie that has not even a hint of losing that purity. This is a movie that puts art first, even before entertainment.

That being said, while I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I'm not sure I would call this one of my favorites. I'm very glad I saw this movie because of its importance to world cinema, but I probably wouldn't include it on my favorites list. Still, not every movie needs to be loved, especially if you can respect it for its artistic value. That's how I approach this film- it didn't so much touch my heart, but intellectually, it was very interesting.

The story is about French soldiers captured by Germans during World War I. They plot various escapes from their prisons. Through this story, the movie manages to touch on themes of class, race, and ultimately, the horrible pointlessness of war. The movie addresses the idea that war changes things as all a "grand illusion." That's a very interesting message, and while we don't actually see a single scene of battle in this film, you feel the horror and destruction of war around every turn. It's hard not to feel some sense of that pointlessness through the actions that unfold on screen.

Grand Illusion is certainly not an easily accessible film, especially for modern audiences. The film is primarily in French (with English subtitles), but the characters variously switch to German and English as well. The movie is a slow, quiet look at war. There are very few intense or exciting moments. The movie contains a great deal of dialogue, which does give the cast the opportunity to really shine. I was impressed with how the cast never felt like actors- they simply felt like real people, caught in these trying situations. I'm sure a good deal of that comes from the excellent direction of Jean Renoir.

This is not a movie you would watch if you want to be entertained for two hours. It takes effort to stay focused and get the full value out of this film. If you're able to do that, you'll find a powerful movie that addresses some essential themes about war and humanity. This might not be my favorite movie, but I recognize its brilliance and its importance. I'd give this film a solid 7.5/10.

I find it fascinating to watch movies that people would consider among the greatest ever made. That is so incredibly subjective, but I find it so interesting to see what people find influential. It is especially engaging to see what foreign directors were doing at the same time that their American counterparts were advancing cinema in this country. No American director in the 30s could have or would have made a film like this. Most of the movies I've seen are American, and movies like Grand Illusion remind me that I need to do a better job of exploring some of these influential films, especially on the foreign front. There's so many classic movies I haven't seen yet, but I feel like every one I watch is another piece of the puzzle. I'm glad I watched this film.

Day 88- Movie 86. Universal Soldier (1992)

The main reason I wanted to watch this movie is because I generally like director Roland Emmerich. He makes some admittedly trashy movies, but I'm also a huge fan of films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. They might be considered bad, but I enjoy them regardless. This film was his first big Hollywood production, and it comes across as from a filmmaker still honing his craft (read: poorly executed). The movie is loud, action-packed, and intense, but it's also stupid, noisy, and illogical.

The story is about a governmental program that brought back dead U.S. soldiers from Vietnam, turning them into super soldiers. The two best "universal" soldiers are Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren, two fighters who died in '69 while battling each other over killing innocent lives (or something stupid like that). Some preposterous events occur that lead Van Damme and a reporter to escape the facility and go on the run from the rest of the super soldiers. Typing that out makes me realize just how laughable the story is.

Anyway, the story matters very little in a film like this. Emmerich does put together some decent action scenes- there's an interesting gunfight at the Hoover Dam, a car chase that takes place at the Grand Canyon, and a climactic battle in an old farmhouse. I suppose these scenes are well executed, but they aren't particularly memorable. They do just enough to keep you somewhat interested in the film.

Wisely, the movie moves quickly enough so that we don't have much time to reflect on how bad it is until the end. It pushes the action and intensity up so that there are very few slow moments. Unfortunately, the film is filled with cliches and the script was just too poorly written. There were some interesting ideas present here, but the movie doesn't capitalize on them at all. This could have been a very good movie, but instead, it's pretty bad. The gaps in logic and plot holes are too overwhelming, and the film never recovers from them.

I am surprised that this film did well enough at the box office and on VHS (1992, remember?) to spawn a number of sequels. I think they were all direct-to-video, though, and I have no desire to watch any of them. I can appreciate a decent movie meant purely to entertain, but I hate when movies are completely and totally mindless. Universal Soldier is not a good movie. I'd give this film a generous 5.5/10.

Has anyone seen any of the sequels? I can't imagine they are worth checking out, but let me know if I'm wrong.

Day 88- Movie 85. Fried Green Tomatoes (1991)

I have to say that I really, really liked this movie. It's a nice reminder of why you should always listen when someone recommends a movie. I probably wouldn't have gone out of my way to see this movie without a recommendation. I'm very glad I took the effort to watch it. Fried Green Tomatoes was a surprisingly powerful movie. It's one of those films that sticks with you.

The movie features two storylines. We have Kathy Bates, who meets elderly Jessica Tandy in a retirement home. The two strike up a friendship, and Tandy recounts stories from her youth. The second storyline involves the interesting, funny, entertaining stories about the people from her childhood. This storyline focuses on two friends, Mary-Louise Parker and Mary Stuart Masterson, and their 20+ year friendship.

The stories that take place in the 1920s and subsequent decades are the most entertaining aspect of the film. The main heart of the movie revolves around Parker and Masterson and their close friendship. These two actresses give such amazing performances- they really made the movie for me. The characters are believable and empathetic, and we watch as they grow up, facing hardships, joys, life and death. It's a fascinating look at friendship in a time very different from our own. It's beautiful in many ways. This all comes from the powerful portrayals by Parker and Masterson. I was a bit disappointed they didn't receive more recognition for their roles (Tandy, though, did receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress). Films about real, lasting friendship are rare, but can be very inspiring. This one definitely was for me.

I thought the main storyline of Kathy Bates and Jessica Tandy was good, but not nearly as good as the flashback story scenes. Bates uses Tandy's stories as inspiration in her own life, and this can be compelling, but I found myself hoping these scenes would wrap up quickly so we could get back to the stories. The movie goes back and forth between the "modern" day and the 20s, but the older stories are clearly more impactful than the modern ones. I thought this was a slight flaw, but Bates and Tandy work well together, and I did enjoy this part of the movie as well. It would have been better had these scenes been a bit stronger.

One of the reasons this movie worked for me is because it manages to reach in and touch you on an emotional level. If you've been reading this blog, you know I often complain about how I didn't care about any of the characters or what happened to them. That was the exact opposite here- the movie makes sure you identify with and actually care about these characters. You quickly learn to care about them and invest yourself in your story. I was surprised how the more emotional moments managed to connect with me. That's one of the film's greatest strengths.

I really liked this movie- the characters, the story, and the lessons it tries to teach. I know movies always change us in small ways (because we're different after watching, thinking about, and reflecting on the story and characters). Fried Green Tomatoes is a movie that sticks with you more than most. I very much enjoyed this movie, and I'll give it a 7.5/10.

So, it's the weekend again, and an important one- I need to get completely caught up with movies. I'm still only 3 behind, so it's not an impossible task by any means. I also need to start building up and get ahead of pace if I want to finish, though. More movies to come...

Day 87- Movie 84. Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

What can I say about Dinner for Schmucks? I'm struggling a bit, to be honest. From the first moment I heard about this movie, I figured it would be bad. I wonder if anyone actually believed wholeheartedly that this would be a great movie? It just seemed so unbelievably stupid. And, after watching, I can confirm that yes, this is a stupid movie. However, it's not quite as bad as I expected.

The reason I didn't hate this movie more is because of the performance of Steve Carell. I like Carell, but I do get tired of his performances on occasion. That's not true here. He plays the biggest "schmuck" you can imagine, but his portrayal is fascinating for its complexity. In one moment, he seems like the biggest loser in the world, but there's simultaneously something sweet and innocent about him, too. He makes you want to laugh at him, but also feel bad about laughing. It's a remarkable performance for its subtlety. His character is easily the most important of the film, and he nails it. This is one of Carell's best performances. He could have made this character a caricature, but instead, makes him a complex, surprisingly believable and empathetic person.

Unfortunately, Carell is caught up in a fairly unfunny movie that reeks of unoriginality. I just didn't laugh very much at all. The movie certainly throws a lot of jokes at the audience, but it's surprising how few actually stick. There are scenes that go on way too long without generating any laughs. There's uncomfortably awkward scenes that serve no real purpose. The whole thing's just so unbelievable. I was impressed with Carell and did laugh at the occasional joke, but the movie as a whole was pretty bad. It also almost completely falls apart at the end.

While I can't claim to have enjoyed this movie, I'm still just so impressed with Carell. I thought he was foolish for taking a role like this, but he won me over. I didn't love Paul Rudd, but he delivers his typically decent performance. Rudd and Carell do work very well together. I genuinely enjoyed watching them.

So, I went into this movie fearing for the worst. Luckily, it's not as bad as it first appeared. Unfortunately, it's not all that good, either. It's a stupid, childish, juvenile movie that is far too short on real laughs. And yet, it gives Carell the opportunity to create an memorable, occasionally amazing character. For that, I am thankful. I'd give this film a 6/10.

Day 86- Movie 83. City Heat (1984)

I was interested in seeing this movie for a number of reasons. It is the first (and I believe, only) pairing of Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds. That's pretty cool. In addition, it's an action comedy that works as a spoof of gangster movies from the 1940s. Plus, the movie is set in 1933, which I thought was an interesting twist to the film. In short, I had decent-sized hopes for this movie. Unfortunately, those were all quickly dashed.

The biggest problem with this movie is the story. It tries to be a twisting, turning, complex tale with gangsters, cops, dames, and private eyes all converging together. However, it's often sloppily handled. There's never any real sense of purpose or urgency to the film. In fact, it's oftentimes rather boring. We see Eastwood, Reynolds, and the rest of the cast all going back and forth, shooting up the place, and it all feels ultimately pointless. There was never a clear reason for anything. The whole movie feels quickly slapped together. It was very disappointing.

Looking past the very weak story, my favorite part of the film is the pairing of Eastwood and Reynolds. These two men were the biggest box office stars in the world at the time of this film's release. They are genuinely good together, as their two very different styles compliment each other nicely. They have a number of very funny exchanges. I actually laughed at a number of them. It was very fun to watch two actors at the top of their game working together. The humor between these two was one of the better parts of this movie.

The action is actually pretty decent, too. There are a number of gunfights throughout the film, some which go on far longer than necessary, but were still fun to watch. I wouldn't say anything is particularly special about these scenes, but I appreciated the focus on these. Although not extraordinary, I'm interested any time Eastwood picks up and gun with the intent to shoot somebody. The action scenes also typically presented the cast with some opportunities for more humorous moments. It was a nice balance.

While the actors were good, the action decent, and the comedy strong, the film is just plagued by a confusing, ineffective script. I could never fully get into the movie. While it was decently entertaining, it's ultimately a letdown. I'm glad I watched this movie to see Eastwood and Reynolds together, but I didn't particularly like it. I'll give the movie a 6/10.

On the 100 in 100, I'm feeling much better about my chances. Somehow, I managed to get close enough that a few big pushes should send me over the top. I have 2 weeks to watch 17 movies, something that is certainly possible. This weekend I should get caught up (and with some luck, go ahead). This still isn't a sure thing, as I'll be too busy to watch even a single movie for some of those days, but I have a chance. That's really all I hoped for- to give myself a chance to complete this as time winded down. Let's hope I can do it.

Day 85- Movie 82. From Here to Eternity (1953)

I've been meaning to watch an Academy Award winner for Best Picture since I started this whole thing. It only took me 82 movies to finally get around to it. I watched From Here to Eternity for the first time. I  have to say that I loved this movie. It was such a beautifully crafted film on every level. It features an incredible cast, remarkable performances, terrific writing, drama, action, romance, and some very humorous parts. It has just about everything you could ask for in a movie. It was excellent.

I was blown away by the cast. Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr are very good as two people struggling with keeping their affair a secret. They have the film's most famous, iconic moment in the kissing scene on the beach. Even though I've never seen this movie, I was familiar with that image- it is certainly the most powerful, lasting single image of the film. I thought they worked well together. Montgomery Clift was incredible as Prewitt. He gives one of the most enjoyable performances I've ever seen. His stubbornness and his determination to walk his own path are inspirational. He worked well with his love interest, Donna Reed. I liked Reed, who matched up well with Clift. This movie also features a career salvaging performance by Frank Sinatra and a memorable performance by Ernest Borgnine. The cast is one of the best I've seen.

It's pretty amazing that this film was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, and won 8. Frank Sinatra won  Best Supporting Actor and Donna Reed won Best Supporting Actress. In addition, Montgomery Clift was nominated for Best Actor, Burt Lancaster also received a Best Actor nomination, and Deborah Kerr was nominated for Best Actress. That's 5 acting nominations and 2 wins. Pretty incredible.

The movie features all these different storylines revolving around different soldiers stationed in Hawaii in the 1940s- each one compelling and fascinating in its own right. We have the romantic affair between Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr. We have Montgomery Clift being put through hell in the army for refusing to join the boxing team, all while trying to develop a relationship with Donna Reed. We have the friendship between Clift and Frank Sinatra, and Sinatra's growing tendency to get himself into trouble, especially with his enemy, Ernest Borgnine. All these stories are weaved together in a incredible way. I found the film to be entertaining, funny, emotionally powerful, and memorable. It was very enjoyable to watch.

It's probably not all that exciting to read someone waxing on and on about how much they loved a movie. I'll just conclude this by saying that From Here to Eternity is one of the best movies I have seen in a long, long time, and I'll give it a much deserved 8.5/10. If you haven't seen this movie, I can't recommend it highly enough.

On a similar note, I'm interested to see how many Academy Award Best Picture winners you've seen. There's been 82 winners. I've listed the films below (note- the date is when the movie was released, not when it won Best Picture) and bolded the titles to mark the ones I've seen:

2009 - “The Hurt Locker”

2008 - “Slumdog Millionaire”
2007 - “No Country for Old Men”
2006 - “The Departed”
2005 - “Crash”
2004 - “Million Dollar Baby”
2003 - “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”
2002 - “Chicago”
2001 - “A Beautiful Mind”
2000 - “Gladiator”
1999 - “American Beauty”
1998 - “Shakespeare in Love”
1997 - “Titanic”
1996 - “The English Patient”
1995 - “Braveheart”
1994 - “Forrest Gump”
1993 - “Schindler’s List”
1992 - “Unforgiven”
1991 - “The Silence of the Lambs”
1990 - “Dances with Wolves”
1989 - “Driving Miss Daisy”
1988 - “Rain Man”
1987 - “The Last Emperor”
1986 - “Platoon”
1985 - “Out of Africa”
1984 - “Amadeus”
1983 - “Terms of Endearment”
1982 - “Gandhi”
1981 - “Chariots of Fire”
1980 - “Ordinary People”
1979 - “Kramer vs. Kramer”
1978 - “The Deer Hunter”
1977 - “Annie Hall”
1976 - “Rocky”
1975 - “One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest”
1974 - “The Godfather Part II”
1973 - “The Sting”
1972 - “The Godfather”
1971 - “The French Connection”
1970 - “Patton”
1969 - “Midnight Cowboy”

1968 - “Oliver!”
1967 - “In the Heat of the Night”
1966 - “A Man for All Seasons”
1965 - “The Sound of Music”
1964 - “My Fair Lady”
1963 - “Tom Jones”
1962 - “Lawrence of Arabia”
1961 - “West Side Story”
1960 - “The Apartment”
1959 - “Ben-Hur”
1958 - “Gigi”
1957 - “The Bridge on the River Kwai”
1956 - “Around the World in 80 Days”
1955 - “Marty”
1954 - “On the Waterfront”
1953 - “From Here to Eternity”
1952 - “The Greatest Show on Earth”
1951 - “An American in Paris”
1950 - “All about Eve”
1949 - “All the Kings Men”
1948 - “Hamlet”
1947 - “Gentleman's Agreement”
1946 - “The Best Years of Our Lives”
1945 - “The Lost Weekend”
1944 - “Going My Way”
1943 - “Casablanca”
1942 - “Mrs. Miniver”
1941 - “How Green Was My Valley”
1940 - “Rebecca”
1939 - “Gone with the Wind”
1938 - “You Can't Take It with You”
1937 - “The Life of Emile Zola”
1936 - “The Great Ziegfeld”
1935 - “Mutiny on the Bounty”
1934 - “It Happened One Night”
1932/1933 - “Cavalcade”
1931/1932 - “Grand Hotel”
1930/1931 - “Cimarron”
1929/1930 - “All Quiet on the Western Front”
1928/1929 - “The Broadway Melody”
1927/1928 - “Wings”

By my count, I've seen 61 Best Picture winners, and I have 21 to go. I should mention that's 61 in my "official count." I've seen West Side Story, so it would actually be 62, but I need to watch that movie again. Thus, officially, it stands at 61. That's not too bad, but I still need to get busy watching those other movies. After I finish seeing every film to win Best Picture, I'll move on to trying to watch every film to win Best Actor. Just a little FYI in case you were interested.

Anyone care to share how many B.P. winners you've seen? I have a feeling that if you've seen The King's Speech, you'll be able to add one more to your list this weekend (although I'm still hoping The Social Network pulls it out)

Day 84- Movie 81. Let Me In (2010)

I am still struggling greatly with what to think about this movie. The question isn't about the quality of this film- it's very, very good. However, I am not sure if it's a great movie. The problem is that this is an American remake of a terrific Swedish movie, Let the Right One In. I need to talk a little about that movie first (and if you haven't seen it, check it out. It's excellent).

Let the Right One In is one of the best vampire movies I've ever seen. It is a quiet, poignant movie about two damaged people (one a human, one a vampire) who connect in a simultaneously beautiful and disturbing way. The movie represents European cinema very well- it's a reflective, meditative look at relationships, power, and evil. It is not an easy movie to watch- it challenges the audience, never pandering to it. It is complex and difficult, but it is also memorable and beautiful, in a sense. I really, really liked it.

I don't believe there was an reason for an American remake. The original film came out in 2008, and two years later for the American version is too short a time span. This movie may prevent some people from checking out the original Swedish one. So, while I wasn't initially excited about it, I was still curious to see what director Matt Reeves (I loved his previous film, Cloverfield) would do with the story. I was even more excited about the cast.

The cast is brilliant. Reeves got two of the best child actors in Hollywood today- Kodi Smit-McPhee (who was incredible in The Road) and Chloe Grace Moretz (who gave one of my favorite performances of the last 10 years as Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass). These two young actors are amazing and I could not think of anyone better for the two roles. As you might expect, they are both quite good. They are better actors than their Swedish counterparts (although the relationship in the original was a bit more powerful). I liked them both immensely in this film. The movie also features small roles for Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas, both excellent actors. Bravo for great casting.

While there are some differences between the two films, Let Me In is careful not to stray too far from the original. Reeves recreates some shots identical to that film (which isn't necessarily bad, because the shots there were so brilliant). That is what makes rating this film so hard- it is a very close remake to the original (which I loved)- does that mean I should love this film, too? Or, does that mean I should criticize this film from basically copying, instead of creating something unique? It's hard to say.

I do love Matt Reeves for not ruining the original story. Yes, he played it very, very safe by sticking to what's already proven to work. He even dumbed down some of the controversial parts of the film for the less cultured American audience (which I didn't like). I'm glad I didn't hate this movie, but I still don't know if it really needed to be made. It is a very, very good vampire tale (that isn't really a true horror movie). However, I have to give the edge to the original. I gave Let the Right One In a very well deserved 8. I'm giving the American Let Me In a very solid 7.5/10.

Has anyone seen both films? I'd recommend seeing both of them, but go with the original first. It isn't the easiest movie to watch (and is subtitled), but it's great.

Day 83- Movie 80. Dreamscape (1984)

I have to believe Dreamscape influenced a number of films that came after it, including last year's Inception. While it occasionally feels cheesy by today's standards, this film was probably much better when it was first released in 1984. I tried to look past the weak special effects and see this movie in the light in which it was first released. I actually really enjoyed this movie.

The story revolves around a team of scientists attempting to use psychics to penetrate the dreams of patients suffering from crippling nightmares. The scientists recruit a very talented psychic (Dennis Quaid) to help people by assisting them in conquering their fears so they can sleep peacefully at night. The idea of entering other people's dreams is a fascinating one, and I loved that this movie tackled that concept in the early 80s.

I automatically get excited about films that do cool things like allow people to enter others' dreams. There is something so interesting about that concept, and I love seeing it played out on screen. Dreamscape does a good job of portraying the dream world- the dream scenes certainly feel like believable dreams, some of which we've probably had before. I thought the idea was interesting, and it kept me engaged in the story from start to finish.

The movie also features a very good cast. I've always liked Dennis Quaid, and I believe he works well here. I believed him as a psychic and I enjoyed watching him on screen. He brings a good deal of charisma and screen presence to his character. The movie also features Max Von Sydow and Christopher Plummer, two excellent actors. I also liked Kate Capshaw here. The cast is impressive.

While I suppose some could view this film in a negative light, I really enjoyed watching it. I admit the story could have been a bit more effective- by the time the government enters the story, things get a bit far-fetched, and I wouldn't be surprised if that lost some people. I was able to stick with the story (even the more outlandish parts) because I cared about the characters and I was genuinely interested in seeing how everything turned out.

If you are able to put aside the criticisms you might have about the film's special effects, pseudoscience and other flaws (keep in mind that this movie is from '84, not today) you'll find a very intelligent, thought-provoking and entertaining adventure movie. If I was judging this movie by today's standards, it would probably be lower. However, keeping in mind the time in which it was made, I found Dreamscape to be a thoroughly enjoyable movie. I would give this film a 7.5/10.

Do you think Christopher Nolan has seen Dreamscape? Do you think Inception was at least partially influenced by this movie?

Day 82- Movie 79. Whatever Works (2009)

I guess I should start this out by saying I'm not the biggest Woody Allen fan. I don't hate him- I think he has made some very solid movies throughout his career. However, I also get annoyed with him pretty quickly. His movies are too similar, and I hate when he plays the same neurotic character over and over again. I just lose patience with him and his movies. So, I respect him when he makes good films, but I can be hard on him when his movies miss the mark (which happens too often).

That being said, I wasn't a huge fan of Whatever Works. The script was an old one Woody Allen wrote years ago, but never made it into a movie. Because of the writer's strike a few years ago, he decided to dust it off. That's exactly what this movie felt like to me- an old idea spruced up just a bit for modern audiences. It felt weak on almost every level.

I don't mind Larry David, but I certainly don't love him, either. I didn't like him much here, partially because I felt certain Allen wrote this role for himself. I could see Allen's neurotic mumbling and worldview in every second of David's performance, and I didn't like it much. I get that he's supposed to be a negative, unlikable character, but I just grew so tired of him. He's fine in small doses, but he wore on me the longer the film went on.

I can't say that any part of this movie really angered me or made me hate it. I didn't feel any of those strong emotions. Instead, I just felt like the entire film was completely inconsequential. It was so hard to care about anything that happened in the entire film. I've always believed every movie can teach you a lesson, but this is one that you had to work a bit to take a lesson away. I didn't have fun watching this movie. Yes, I thought a little and laughed a few times, but there was just so very little that was entertaining here. It was a movie devoid of enjoyment.

Whatever Works may be fun for Woody Allen or Larry David fans, but I just don't see much here to appeal to wider audiences. I'm not surprised that audiences generally stayed away from this film (it made just over $5 million)- why would you pay money to watch something like this? I don't get it. I'll give this movie a 5.5/10.

Well, this concludes my movie watching for the weekend. I did make up some more ground, but not as much as I wanted. I wanted to do 2 movies Friday, 3 Saturday, and 4 Sunday. That would have netted me +6, putting me only 2 off pace. Unfortunately, that just didn't happen today. I'm three movies behind, instead of two. That's not the end of the world, but it hurts because I have to make up that movie later.

It looks like I'm in pretty good shape, but that may be somewhat misleading. I have 18 days to watch 21 movies, but I don't really have 18 days. I could lose 4 days where I'll just be too busy to watch even a single film. So, I definitely still have time, but I need to stay focused on my goal. That being said, I'm cooked for tonight. I'm going to crawl into bed and try to not think about movies.

Day 82- Movie 78. The Last Run (2004)

Well, this is why I almost never watch direct-to-DVD movies. They are typically awful. If I could take a lesson away from this pitiful movie is that I shouldn't watch movies I know nothing about. I do enough research and reading about movies that I tend to know something about most movies. If I don't, I'll do a little research. I went into this film knowing nothing about it, except that it starred Fred Savage and Amy Adams. I thought to myself, hey, it can't be all that bad. It was worse.

I understand what they were trying to do here. The idea was to take a squeaky clean television actor- Fred Savage- and put him in the most raunchy, sex-fueled film imaginable. The idea was for him to play against type. None of this matters because the whole thing is so awful. The story is about a man (Fred Savage) dating a beautiful girl who he loves. She breaks up with him, and he goes into an awful spiral, becoming a sex addict in the process. There's much more to the story, but it's all so stupid and pointless.

The biggest question I have is why Amy Adams signed on to this film. I know this was earlier in career- before she hit it big- but her role is fairly pointless, and the movie is just so terrible. I don't know why she's in this film.

There's so many reasons why I hated this movie. There's not a single likable character in the entire film. The movie features gratuitous sex and vulgar dialogue for no reason other than to be controversial. The script was a travesty and the acting was awful. There's just nothing to like about this movie at all. The ending is atrocious as well.

In fact, I'm mad enough I wasted so much of my life on this movie. I'm done writing and thinking about it. 1.5/10 for this terrible movie.

My advice to you is to not watch this movie for any reason. It's a worthless pile of garbage.

Day 82. Movie 77. The Bounty (1984)

The Bounty tells the familiar story of the famous mutiny and the clash between Captain William Bligh  and Fletcher Christian. This story has been told in film before. The 1935 version featured Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh and Clark Gable as Fletcher Christian. That movie was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, and won one- the Academy Award for Best Picture. There was also a 1962 version, featuring Trevor Howard as Bligh and Marlon Brando as Christian. It didn't win any Academy Awards, but it did receive 7 nominations (including a nom for Best Picture). This film dropped the "Mutiny on" from the title, and received a grand total of 0 nominations. Interestingly, this is probably the most accurate film about the real-life event.

This is a good movie, although at 132 minutes, is a bit long. It could have been cut down some. Still, it tells the story in a very interesting light, some of which is very different from previous movies. In the 1935 version, Captain Bligh is depicted as a brutal tyrant. That is probably not historically accurate. This film is much more believable- yes, he was a stern disciplinarian, and may have occasionally been too harsh, but was in fact at least a decent captain- he was not a monster. I appreciated that focus on trying to get the events historically accurate.

The cast is pretty impressive- Anthony Hopkins, Mel Gibson, Daniel Day-Lewis, Liam Neeson, and Laurence Olivier. That is actually quite remarkable. Hopkins is very good as Bligh- he definitely has a harsh streak in him, but Hopkins plays him as a real man- complex and complicated- not as a one-dimensional tyrant. Mel Gibson is pretty good as Fletcher Christian. While I might have liked Gable in the role better, Gibson is a talented actor, and plays the part well. Day-Lewis and Neeson both have smaller roles, but it is very enjoyable seeing them throughout the film. They added a good deal to it. Olivier has a very small role, and I actually forgot he was in this movie until the end. Still, this movie features five incredibly talented actors, and that's one of its greatest strengths.

The cinematography for this movie was pretty incredible. We have some beautiful shots of the Bounty set against the open sea or the setting sun. The island of Tahiti looks lush and exotic. I was very impressed with how this movie looked visually. Even the ship itself is quite a sight to see. It added a good deal to the film.

While the movie mostly does a good job of holding our attention, there were a few moments when I did find it hard to pay attention. The movie spends a considerable amount of time on the island itself. This is important because it helps you to understand why there was a mutiny in the first place (and it is more complicated than simply because the crew hated Bligh). We need time on the island, but I thought there was too much time spent here. These scenes are less effective than watching the men on the open seas, and they slow the movie down. I also thought the actual mutiny scenes could have been more effective. The decision must have been a very difficult one, but too little of that is shown.

This is definitely a good movie, but I thought it needed more of an emotional punch. It's interesting to watch, but it never really hits you on any kind of emotional level. It is historically accurate, but not always completely entertaining. I did enjoy this movie, but I still wanted more. For a movie telling the same story for the third time (and when the previous two films were so critically acclaimed), I felt like this one needed more to it. Still, this is a good movie. I'll give it a 7/10.

So, it is late afternoon on Sunday, and I just finished my first movie. This is not good. I need to hit 4 movies today, and I'm not sure I can do it. It was a struggle to get through this one. I'm just tired of watching movies. I have other things to do and other things I want to do. Unfortunately, I'm still 5 movies down, which is simply too many. I need to close that gap today if I hope to have a shot at 100. I'll go psych myself up for more movie watching. It's funny that I'm complaining about this, but you try watching a movie when you absolutely don't feel like it. It's not easy, my friends.