Day 62- Movie 52. The A-Team (2010)

I'm not really sure if anyone was clamoring for this film to be made. I understand why Hollywood is mining television shows from the 80s for feature films (nostalgia factor, built-in name recognition, etc.) but not every TV show needs to be turned into a movie. I suppose there are worse candidates than The A-Team, but I admit I felt completely ambivalent toward this movie. Its existence meant nothing for me, although I obviously hoped it would be good.

The film isn't very good. The plot is outlandish, the characters are too one-dimensional, and nothing actually matters in the whole movie. Here's a challenge- at any point in this film- ANY point- 20 minutes in, 45 minutes in, 70 minutes in- stop and ask yourself this question: "Do I actually care about anything that is happening right now?" I would be shocked if you legitimately, truly cared. This movie is a loud, noisy, action-packed film that adds up to very little.

Now, some of the action sequences are pretty good. The flying tank is a highlight, and there are a number of explosions, gunfights, and other action staples that should satisfy any action movie fan. However, director Joe Carnahan did a pretty crappy job at editing. I don't understand why movies (especially action movies) are edited to the point where you never know exactly what is happening. You see quick flashes of people and action, but never really get a clear shot of anything. That is so annoying to me, and happens far too often.

I thought the cast was fine. Liam Neeson makes a good Hannibal, and I actually enjoyed him in the role. Bradley Cooper was a bit too over-the-top, but he mostly works as Face. I don't believe Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson is a very good actor (actually, I know he's not), but he certainly looked the part. I was actually surprised I didn't like Sharlto Copley more. I loved him in District 9, but he didn't really work for me here. The rest of the cast is decent- Jessica Biel and Patrick Wilson are fine, but not exactly spectacular.

I almost wish I could have liked this movie more. The script tried to give us a solid action film, and there are a few sparks of brilliance. Unfortunately, though, the movie is such a cluttered mess that it never makes much of an impact. I was able to completely shake off this mostly forgettable action film. I would be surprised if we ever get a sequel. In some small way, I hope this film leads Hollywood toward focusing less on rehashing old ideas, and more on creating innovative, original ones.

I thought The A-Team was a decently entertaining action movie, although it left me wishing it was better. I would give this lightweight film a 6/10.

What do you think about this trend of making 80s TV shows into films? Is it working for you? Have you been excited about Transformers, the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies, Yogi Bear, or any of the other dozens of 80s shows turned into movies? For me, the trend has mostly been disappointing. What's the best 80s show turned movie? I honestly have a hard time thinking of a great one...

Day 61- Movie 51. A Night in Casablanca (1946)

I've been meaning to watch a Marx Brothers movie because I wanted to discuss these actors a bit and their interesting, unique movies. They made a number of famous comedies, some of which are considered among the greatest comedies ever made. This film, A Night in Casablanca was one of their later efforts, but is also considered a very strong movie. I would agree that the film is good, although it certainly has some limitations as well.

The movie was supposed to be a spoof of Casablanca, but the script was eventually rewritten as a more original, unique story. There are definitely elements of Casablanca here, but there's also references to To Have and Have Not, so this movie is really a spoof of a genre, not really of a certain film. I like that the film offers up its own story, but it so clearly was designed to spoof a certain movie that it is a bit disappointing it doesn't do that more.

There are a few very funny scenes with Groucho, Harpo, and Chico. I always enjoy watching the zany, elaborate comedy scenes they come up with. While the ones here don't reach the heights of their most famous scenes, several are pretty enjoyable. I like watching what passed as comedy in the 1940s. It was very different than from today. Some of the jokes are still funny, but others are just so corny that they don't hit modern audiences the same way.

I wonder how many movie watchers today have gone back to watch some of the classic Marx Brothers films. If you haven't done so, I highly recommend seeing Duck Soup. That film features some of the most unbelievable, impressive comedy scenes of all time. It was highly influential, and is regarded as one of the greatest comedies of all time. That film is one of my favorite older comedies. I still marvel at what the Marx Brothers were able to pull off in the early 1930s. A Night in Casablanca isn't as good as that film, but it possesses many similar qualities.

I enjoyed this movie and it craziness. I wish the film had been more of a direct spoof, and I admit the end falls apart a bit. However, it was still a fun, funny movie to watch. I would give this film a 7/10.

On the 100 movies in 100 days front, I'm obviously at the worst point yet. I'm a whopping 10 movies down, with only 39 days to go. 49 movies in 39 days? That is going to be very, very tough. I wish I could have seen more, but I spent the last 13 days in New York and Florida, and I had more important things going on. The next 10 days aren't exactly wide open, so I may be in even more trouble a week from today. I still have a valid chance at achieving my goal, but I am going to have to get very, very busy.

Day 56- Movie 50. The Trouble with Angels (1966)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film. They really don't make movies like this anymore. It is a film appropriate for viewers of any age, and discusses some important themes- religion, friendship, faith, redemption, life and death, and more. And yet, the film is a pretty straightforward comedy. I liked this movie because it's so different than films being made today.

The Trouble with Angels is a coming-of-age story about two girls in an all-girls school run by Catholic nuns. The two girls are played by Hayley Mills and June Harding. The comedy comes in because they are incredibly rebellious, wrecking havoc on the nuns and on their fellow students. The movie is basically a series of misadventures where the two girls come up with some scathingly brilliant idea that backfires and gets them in trouble with the head nun (Rosalind Russell). Their adventures and pranks are genuinely funny, and keep the movie moving.

I really enjoyed this aspect of the film. The pranks they pulled weren't really mean-spirited, but the kind of tricks we all pulled in our formative years as we pushed back against authority figures. There was a big of a nostalgia factor for me, remembering what it was like to be at that age, and the trouble that seemed far too easy to cause.

The movie really works because of the cast. Hayley Mills and June Harding just work so well together. You really buy their friendship- their chemistry is quite good. They are the kind of people you wanted to hang out with at that age- defiant enough to cause trouble for the sake of fun, and willing to pay whatever punishment was dolled out. They were both excellent. It's a shame that Mills' career took a nosedive shortly after this film, because she was one of the greatest child actors I've ever seen. Rosalind Russell adds in a very good performance as Mother Superior- the tough, no nonsense nun that really has a huge heart underneath that icy exterior.

I admit that I can see how someone might not like this movie. The message is certainly not for everyone, as it does have some religious and spiritual themes prevalent throughout the film. The pacing is occasionally off, and the movie drags a bit in the middle. Despite that, though, I'm a huge fan of this film. Maybe some of it is that this was one of my dad's all-time favorite movies as a kid, I don't know. Regardless, I really loved watching this movie- it was entertaining in a way movies seldom are today. I thought this was a great movie, and I would give it a very strong 8/10.

Well, I thought I might go 0/13 over these two weeks. So far, I am 2/8. That is better than I expected, but not very good. I'm already 6 movies down, after I worked so hard just to get caught back up. It seems I'm cursed- as soon as I get back on pace, life happens, and then I lose ground again. I may be able to squeeze 1 or 2 movies in over the next five days, but it's more likely that I'll end this week 11 movies down with slightly over a month to go. I am confident I can make some of that up, but it's certainly not a sure thing.

By the way, if you haven't seen this movie, I recommend it. If you hate it, don't yell at me. However, I think you may be pleasantly surprised.

Day 54- Movie 49. Donovan's Reef (1963)

It felt weird to watch a John Wayne movie where he didn't fire a gun, ride horses, or partake in too much action at all (besides the occasional bar room brawl). This is one of the more quirky films in Wayne's catalog- a romantic comedy. Wayne still plays his typically gruff, hard-nosed man with a heart of gold, but this role is also a departure from the majority of his characters. For that reason, this film was refreshing to watch.

 
The movie itself is decent, but never really great. The movie is about a woman who travels to the South Seas to meet her father for the first time, and to determine whether he has any moral flaws that would prevent him from receiving his willed shares of a massive shipping company. There, she meets Wayne and the other zany characters inhabiting the island. The story itself become secondary and mostly forgotten as we watch these characters move around aimlessly, jumping from scene to scene with very little momentum or direction.

In some ways, this movie comes across as a screwball comedy. It certainly marked a major departure for both John Wayne and director John Ford, as there is very, very little action. The action scenes we do get are infused with comedy, and very really amount to much- there's no suspense, no real point to any of the action (which mostly consists of people punching each other, then randomly stopping and drinking together). It's strange how much this film stands out from the majority of the films these two men made. In one regard, it is refreshing to see a major change of pace. On the other hand, it feels out of place and unexpected.

Donovan's Reef is certainly a decent movie, but it never really gains any momentum. The story ambles along like it's on vacation in the South Seas, with no real direction or motivation. That doesn't make for a great movie. I would give this film a 6.5/10.

On the topic of this 100 movies in 100 days, I am in the middle of that 13 day stretch where I worried I wouldn't watch a single movie. I did manage to get this one in, but I'm already 5 behind again, and there's a real possibility I'll lose 6 more days before watching another movie. I'm going to try to sneak one or two in over the next week, but I may be in a hole too insurmountable to overcome. We'll see how it goes, but this hole is getting bigger every day.

Day 48- Movie 48. The Other Guys (2010)

The Other Guys is an interesting film. When I first saw trailers for it, I thought it looked incredibly stupid. And then, over the course of months of seeing the same trailers over and over again, it grew on me and I thought it looked funnier and funnier. I was actually really looking forward to it. The movie isn't horrible, but it is closer to my original estimation of the film.

I like this film's intention- it was trying to be a very funny comedy that was perfectly blended with serious action sequences. While this has been done before, there's always room for a good action comedy. I was also interested to see Will Ferrell doing something different than his typical shtick. The movie actually does a pretty good job of this- the action scenes are quite well choreographed and are pretty exciting, and there are some very funny moments as well. And yet, the movie itself doesn't quite work as well as was hoped.

The big problem with this movie is that the story was fairly weak. It often seemed as if the writing was done purely to get our characters from one joke to another. The story never really comes across as believable or effective. It all seemed a bit silly and poorly thought out. The film's events were oftentimes confusing and mostly forgettable.

I liked the pairing of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg. They made an unlikely duo (and reminded me a bit of Nick Nolte-Eddie Murphy in 48 Hrs.) and worked well together. I know Wahlberg felt a little uncomfortable as this is his first true starring comedic role, but he pulled it off quite well. I liked the back-and-forth between these two actors, although I have to admit their banter did occasionally get a bit tiresome. Still, they are the funniest part of the movie, and I really liked the casting.

I thought this was a decent comedy- it had some hilarious lines, as well as a number of stupid, unfunny ones. Some bits run far too long without generating any real jokes. I would give this film a 6.5/10.

On another note, the next 13 days are going to be a critical time for this 100 movies in 100 days thing. I'm going to be incredibly busy, and it wouldn't surprise me if I didn't watch a single movie over that time frame. I'm going to do my damndest not to let that happen, but things may be beyond my control. Worst case scenario, we're looking at the possibility that I could be on Day 61 and still stuck on movie 48. I don't know how I could possibly watch 52 movies in 39 days, but I may be faced with that reality. If that happens, I could potentially face failure here. I'll keep you updated, but whether I achieve this 100 in 100 may very depend on finding time to watch movies over the next two weeks.

Day 47- Movie 47. The 11th Hour (2007)

Whether you care or even believe in the current climate crisis currently facing our planet, I recommend seeing The 11th Hour. The film presents some interesting statistics about the level of climate change currently as well as projections for the future. The movie paints a very depressing, sad picture of the world. It also tries to offer at least some hope for the future. This isn't the best documentary in the world, but it is interesting and entertaining.

I'll start with what I like. I liked that Leonardo DiCaprio was so involved in this film. You can tell this cause is important to him- he's not just an actor being an activist because he thinks it's cool. DiCaprio cares about the environment, and in his own way, he's trying to make a difference. You have to appreciate that kind of dedication. DiCaprio does a good job of narrating the film, and his presence adds some nice celebrity to the film also.

I also like that this movie went out and got a huge number of scientists and specialists to discuss the environmental situation. It was very interesting to hear from such a wide group of people, including Stephen Hawking and Mikhail Gorbachev. The different views, all sharing similar opinions made this situation seem all the more real. Whether you believe in all this or not, it would be impossible to argue that we as human beings don't need to make some changes in the way we will. I feel like most people, when they look around at the world in which we live will recognize some good things, and many, many bad things. The world is not ideal- it is not even that great of a place to live. Sure, as Americans we often forget what the world is really like outside of our beautiful little bubble (and I personally don't want to live outside it), but things need to change. The Green Movement is pushing forward, but it's too little too slowly. We are in desperate need of major changes in the way we build, the types of products we consume, and the way in which we use energy. Anything that helps that cause (i.e., this movie) is worthwhile.

There were a few things I didn't like. I wish the film had at least briefly flashed the credentials of some of the people interviewed. Unless you knew them already, it was impossible to know who was talking. I'm sure this was done intentionally, but I would have liked to have at least understood who I was listening to speak. Is this person a scientist? A professor? Some random guy off the street? I just wish I knew.

The film is pretty much structured like this- the first hour is meant to make you realize how dire the situation is, and the last thirty minutes are spent giving the audience some hope for the future. I wish more time was spent on the hope, and less time spent making me feel horrible about the planet. By the end of the first hour, I felt pretty depressed about the whole human species and our horrible destruction of this beautiful blue green planet we call home. The last thirty minutes helped, but that part should have been the majority. Yes, the world is pretty screwed up right now- but how do we fix it? That's the part I wanted the film to spend more time on. One guy even poses that question- "If someone says, I want to do something, what can they do?" His answer didn't really give any insight- it mostly boiled down to "Get involved." Get involved in what? The film was unclear. I wish this movie gave more direction or advice about how to get people involved.

But, this film was created for a slightly different purpose- to raise awareness. The movie does a good job of describing the importance of raising people's awareness, and it achieves that goal. I'll give this documentary a 7/10.

Did this movie inspire anyone to do or act differently? I was moved by the message, but I admit after watching it I threw away a plastic bottle and took a too-long shower. Leo would not approve...

Day 47- Movie 46. Cradle Will Rock (1999)

Tim Robbins' mostly true story, Cradle Will Rock is an underrated film that tells the powerful story of about an original 1937 musical production that was shut down by the government because they did not approve of the play's content. This story is one of many in the film, which are all weaved together to paint a portrait of censorship, art v. politics, union v. nonunion, and this country's fight against communism on the domestic front. Robbins received some criticism for this film (which he wrote, produced, and directed) because there were "too many" storylines, which reportedly prevented any one from achieving its full potential. I admit that there are definitely many storylines and many characters, but they all work together to create an interesting mosaic portraying an interesting time in U.S. history.

Period film don't often do well with audiences, especially ones that polarize with some pretty blatant political commentary. This movie is very leftist and Robbins has no qualms with displaying his political beliefs front and center. While I don't agree with all of Robbins' political beliefs, I felt like I was able to put politics aside to appreciate what he was trying to convey in this film.

I do want to talk about the cast, because it is impressive. Here's some of the big names-

Hank Azaria, Joan Cusack, John Cusack, Cary Elwes, Philip Baker Hall, Angus Macfadyen, Bill Murray, Vanessa Redgrave, Susan Sarandon, Emily Watson, John Turturro, Jack Black, Kyle Gass, Paul Giamatti, Gretchen Mol

Robbins certainly assembles an impressive cast for his third directorial effort. While not all of the big names get much screen time (some are on screen for very little), they each have enough to do to make an impact on the film. I enjoyed seeing all of these good actors working together.

I believe people that don't mind watching period pieces will enjoy this look at censorship and theater in the 1930s America. The characters are pretty recognizable, including Orson Welles and Nelson Rockefeller. I thought Robbins did a good job of telling this story, and I was impressed with his ability to control chaos throughout the film. This was a good movie- 7.5/10.

If you like movies about historical events that also make you think, I'd recommend seeing Cradle Will Rock. It was a little-seen film in 1999, and I bet not too many people have seen it even today.

Day 46- Movie 45. Mallrats (1995)

Like most of Kevin Smith's movies, Mallrats is fairly polarizing. Some people love the movie, while others hate it. I've never been the biggest Kevin Smith fan, but I certainly respect him as a director. I believe Mallrats is a solid effort, and a pretty funny movie.

Smith's greatest talent has to be writing dialogue. He is a gifted writer, and the rapid-fire conversations here are really funny and entertaining. I could just sit back and watch his characters speak those beautiful, foul, controversial words all day long. Bad dialogue ruins far too many movies- many good scripts are spoiled by the awful, wooden dialogue uttered by the characters. Smith's films never have that problem.

Mallrats is a fun, quirky story that never really amounts to much, but is still fun to watch. I love how Smith connects all his films through character and themes, and this film is more effective when looked at in connection with movies like Clerks, Chasing Amy, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, and others. That's a cool way to approach film making, and another of the traits that makes Smith a unique director.

I figure at this point, most people have seen this movie, probably multiple times, so there's no point in elaborating further. I'd give this film a solid 7/10.

I'm also going to end this one short, and try to get some sleep. It's now after 1:30am. Since I've started doing this 100 movies in 100 days, I've found that the whole thing has really decreased the amount of sleep I get. If I'm not staying up late watching movies and writing about them, I'm watching movies earlier in the day (when I normally get other things done), pushing those things back later in the day, requiring me to stay up later. Either way, this whole thing is making me very tired.

On another note, the hardest thing I've found in doing this is that every single day, when I wake up, I'm already 1 movie behind. It's relentless. I love watching movies, and in many ways, it's been enjoyable trying to cram so many movies into such a short time. But, I don't normally watch movies every day. It's nice to be able to take a day or multiple days off from watching any movies at all. However, I can't do that now. I have an obligation to watch at least one movie every day I'm able. I'm getting close to being halfway done, and I am looking forward to the day when there's no pressure- if I want to watch a movie, I can. If I don't, that's fine too. 54 days left...

Day 46- Movie 44. Street Fighter (1994)

Street Fighter is awful on nearly every level. I remember watching this in the mid 90s, and even then, I knew that this film pretty much sucked. It is just a stunning failure, further proving that it is nearly impossible to make a great movie based on a video game. I will mention a few positives for this film, but the negatives far outweigh everything else. The script is an absolute mess of ridiculous events and awful dialogue. There are so many cringe-worthy moments in this film that it nearly made me sick.

This movie tried very hard to stay true to the video game- so much of this film is spent winking at the fans of the video game, putting in little Easter eggs that hardcore gamers will immediately pick up on. That's fine to do, but not at the expense of the quality of the overall film. By trying to make this movie like a video game, the movie itself suffered horribly.

I want to quote two lines from this film that pretty much sum it all up to me:

Ken actually utters this line- "This sucks! Those guys are good guys, like us!"
That is one of the stupidest, worst lines of dialogue I have ever heard. I am stunned that more than one human being actually thought a line like that would work.

Later in the film, Guile says to another character- "I'm okay. I'm just half dead."
Again, the sheer stupidity of that statement is stunning.

I will admit that the one positive from this film is that it is kind of cool to see all those characters from the video game come to life on screen. I remember watching this movie while still playing the game, and it was very fun to see so many characters in fairly honest adaptations on the big screen. The movie even manages to get most of the characters in the very costumes they wear in the game. To achieve all this, the film had to sacrifice any realism or logic, but hey, trade offs do occur. Raul Julia gives a good performance, simply because it is so over the top and ridiculous that you have to give him credit for committing to that level of insanity.

I could talk more about this film, but I'm tired and my mind hurts from watching such a giant piece of trash. I remember being disappointed in this film when I was 13 or so, and now that I am a more experienced movie watcher, that disappointment has turned into disgust. I thought this film tried hard to weave all these characters into a coherent plot. It didn't exactly work, but the effort was there. I appreciate that effort, even if the end result was a massive failure.

I dare anyone to defend this movie. Video game movies typically result in crap movies (unfortunately, because I would love for them to work), and films like Street Fighter only further that belief. This movie sucks. 4.5/10.

Here's a pretty damn hard question- Best movie based on a video game?

Day 45- Movie 43. The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953)

So, it is very late on Friday night, and I am pretty tired. I'm going to keep this one fairly short. I watched The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, which is one of the most influential monster movies of all time. The film came out in 1953, and represented the first movie to tie giant monsters to atomic weapons. In many ways, this is the film responsible for launching the monster movie craze of the 1950s. It directly inspired the Japanese to start making their Godzilla movies (Gojira came out a year later, in '54). I always love watching movies that are deemed influential, because you can easily see how they impacted the movies that came after them.

I was surprised that this movie was actually pretty good. The special effects are obviously dated, but were impressive for the time. We see the giant monster (actually, a fictional Rhedosaurus) destroy ships, a lighthouse, buildings, cars, a roller coaster, and eating people. The special effects, done by the legendary Ray Harryhausen are very, very impressive. The movie is obviously science fiction, but I appreciate it trying to stay true to the science of the day. Much of the "science" seems ridiculous now, but this movie is much more realistic than the Godzilla movies that would come afterward.

While there were monster movies long before this one, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms inspired dozens of monsters movies after. I was impressed that this was the first film to connect nuclear weapons to the giant monsters, ushering in the age of giant monster movies that were so prevalent in the 1950s. You can look at this movie as a stupid, silly film- there are certainly many flaws, laughable dialogue, and absurd science. However, by putting yourself in the shoes of the audiences of the early 1950s, you can see how this movie might have been impactful. Humanity had just recently harnessed the power of the atom, and there was no telling where human ingenuity would lead us. There was also fear, too- perhaps we had grown too smart as a species, and our intelligence would be our downfall. The implications and consequences of nuclear weapons were not clearly understood by many. Giant monsters brought to life by radioactivity certainly seemed like a more real concept than it does today.

I was surprised that I enjoyed this movie as much as I did. The film is flawed and is very often silly, but it does enough right that it makes sense that this film became a classic and a very inspirational film. I give this movie a 7/10.

Ok, that's it for me. I knocked out three movies on Friday night. I really, really need to continue this pace for the rest of the weekend. The next two weeks are going to be extremely busy, so I may find myself in a very bad place by the end of January. I need to build up a few extra movies, or 100 in 100 may become a pipe dream. Thanks for reading, and goodnight.

Day 45- Movie 42. Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985)

After watching The NeverEnding Story earlier this week, I thought I'd give another film from my childhood a go. I haven't seen Pee-wee's Big Adventure in 15+ years. Unfortunately, the movie wasn't as good as I remembered it. There are some legitimately funny moments in this film, but unfortunately, they are sandwiched in between annoying, stupid, pointless moments that pervade much of the film.

As you might remember, this movie is about Pee-wee Herman's attempt to find his lost bicycle. His quest for his lost bike takes him all over the country, where he meets an eclectic group of people from all walks of life. Hilarity ensues. I suppose to a certain extent, you have to respect a movie for being so completely odd and crazy. Everything about this movie is bizarre. I was surprised that this was Tim Burton's feature film directorial debut, but he was probably the right director for the job. This film does occasionally reek of a first-time director. Burton shows some of his oddball genius, but he would definitely go on to  make better films.

What most surprised me about this film were my feelings toward Pee-wee Herman. I remember being a fan as a kid, but I can say my feelings have changed. Maybe some of this is due to the real-life struggles of Paul Reubens, but the guy just creeped me out. He was such a gigantic man-child, giggling and laughing (oh my God, the laughing... just make it stop) constantly throughout the entire film. My favorite scenes were the ones when Pee-wee was sad or depressed, because at least he wouldn't unleash that annoying laugh. Whatever appeal Pee-wee might have had has been completely lost. He just seemed so silly and pointless. I'm not sure if that means I am jaded now that I'm older, but I thought his character was stupid.

I do have to give Burton credit for piling so much into this one film. Road trip movies often do that, but it is still enjoyable here. I can't even begin to describe everything in this movie- ghost truck drivers, convicts, cross-dressing, multicolored elephants, James Brolin, the Alamo, the Warner Brothers studio lot, Godzilla, and so much more. It's like a crazy nightmare.

There are actually stretches of the movie that were very enjoyable- these are typically the ones where Pee-wee bounces from scene to scene, meeting strange people who help him along the way. Many of these scenes were fun, and I didn't mind them at all. The worst parts of the film are the beginning and the end.

I wish that I had liked this movie better, but it was a bit of a chore to get through. It was very strange to watch scenes that I only vaguely remembered from my childhood. Despite that bit of nostalgia, I just couldn't bring myself to like this movie. I would give it a 6/10.

Am I being too hard on this movie? Did anyone love this movie as a kid and have actually seen it in the last 5 years? How did it hold up? Am I wrong for finding the film stupid and creepy?

Day 45- Movie 41. The Train Robbers (1973)

You know, I've watched 40 movies so far in this challenge, and I realized that I had not yet watched a Western. That's a shame, so I decided to rectify it with John Wayne's The Train Robbers. This is one of Wayne's later films (he made only 5 others before he died), but it is in many ways the traditional Western we've come to expected from him.

I wouldn't say The Train Robbers is one of Wayne's best, but this is still a solid movie. The film is about a gunfighter (John Wayne) hired by a widow (Ann-Margret) to find $500,000 in gold stolen by her late husband in a train robbery. She wants to return the money to the railroad to set an example for her son. Wayne and his group set out with the widow in tow, but they face off against a much larger band of outlaws who want the money for themselves.

The movie features some good performances by Wayne and Margret. They work well together, and seem to get along pretty well. Wayne is at his charismatic, tough guy best. Margret adds some much needed softness to the film, and has a pretty funny scene in which she's very drunk. The movie unfolds pretty much as you expect- lots of horse riding, some gun fights, a few explosions, etc. The movie also devotes time to develop the characters, which doesn't always happen in Westerns. We have a number of scenes of various people talking, remembering old times, and reflecting on their current state. These quiet moments were interesting, and really gave the characters needed depth.

The movie is pretty beautiful to watch- the cinematography is oftentimes outstanding. The score was very well done. The movie also has an unexpected twist near the end, which makes the movie a bit unique in terms of your average Western movie. For some reason, though, this movie isn't regarded as very good by many critics. That surprised me a bit. The film is not a classic, but it is a serviceable, entertaining film. I thought it was a bit underrated by many critics and viewers.

I thought The Train Robbers was a good movie. John Wayne movies are almost always good. While this is clearly not one of his best, there's not too much wrong with it, either. I would give this film a 7/10.

I wish more people today would watch Westerns. Westerns were such a huge genre of film for decades- dozens and dozens came out every year. Over time, audiences' tastes changed, and now we get about 1 a year. The genre is certainly predictable, but I've always loved watching them regardless. There's something so relaxing about watching Westerns simply because you know what to expect. There's good guys and bad guys, gunfights, gold, drinking in saloons, revenge plots, and horse chases. These elements make up the majority of Westerns and it's just so comforting to see these elements play out over and over again, always with slight variations. If you love movies and haven't gone back to watch some of the classic Westerns, I highly encourage you to check them out. There are some truly great movies in tha collection.

So, John Wayne made an almost shocking amount of Westerns- what is your favorite John Wayne Western?

Day 44- Movie 40. I Confess (1953)

I thought it was time to watch an Alfred Hitchcock movie. Hitchcock is one of the all time greatest directors, and the list of his great movies is extensive. Unfortunately, I wouldn't include I Confess in that list. The movie is decent and certainly interesting and thought-provoking, but this is clearly not one of Hitchcock's best.

The movie is about a priest (Montgomery Clift) who hears the confession of one of his parishioners- the confession of murder. As he is a Roman Catholic priest, he is bound to not reveal what was confessed to him. This alone is pretty interesting, but Hitchcock always has a twist- the priest is soon accused of the murder himself. Now he is faced with a very difficult decision. Does he break his vow and reveal the truth of the murderer? Or, does he remain quiet, and face jail and possibly death? This makes up the central thrilling aspect of the film. What would you do?

Putting yourself in the priest's shoes, you are facing a very difficult decision- do you sacrifice your life to save your soul, or sacrifice your soul to save your life? The strongest part of the film revolves around this question. Unfortunately, Hitchcock doesn't linger long enough on this question. He's too preoccupied with the rest of the story to let us have time to reflect on it. I was disappointed in that.

I also thought Montgomery Clift was not very good in the lead role. In my research on this film, I saw many people claiming he was brilliant. I thought he was boring, wooden, and showed far too little emotion. I would think a man in his situation would show more emotion- fear, panic, worry, concern- something. He moves through the whole film with the same look on his face- revealing nothing about whatever inner torment is going on. That was a big miss.

While I loved the thought-provoking "What would you do?" question, a question alone doesn't make a good movie. This isn't one of Hitchcock's most well-known movies, because it simply isn't one of his best. I thought the movie was decent, so it gets a 6.5/10- but I wish it had been better.

Any Hitchcock fans out there? What is your all-time favorite Hitchcock movie?

By the way, if you haven't seen Rope, it is one of the most underrated Hitchcock movies of all time. I love that movie, but so many people haven't seen it. Check it out.

Day 43- Movie 39. Nell (1994)

You would expect a movie about a wild woman in the woods who knows nothing about civilization and has her own language to be a pretty powerful movie. I was surprised by how unaffected I was by everything in this film. I shrugged it off all too easily. I still don't get exactly what the film was trying to achieve, because it simply doesn't work. This is a movie with good intentions that didn't exactly work as planned.

The biggest conversation piece with this film is the performance of Jodie Foster. I still can't believe what I saw. Foster basically gives either one of the all time great performances, or one of the all time ridiculous ones. I tend to lean toward the latter. I understand she's a wild woman with her own language, but this translated to watching Foster sway around like a tree and babble incessant, annoying nonsense for two hours. I bought this all at first, but as the movie went on, I became less and less a fan. I am still shocked that Foster committed so fully to this role. You can tell she's a firm believer that what she is doing is brilliant. It comes across as just plain crazy. Watching her performance in this film is like watching a car wreck- you don't want to watch because it's so unpleasant, but you can't really look away, either. In some ways, it is deserving that she received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. I can't imagine anyone knew what to make of her performance, so giving her an Oscar nomination only made sense.

I would imagine that viewers of this film fall into two camps. If you bought Foster's performance, I believe  you would have watched a powerful, beautiful film about the little things in life (and how they really are the big things). I bet you would believe that this movie taught us a valuable less, that for all our innovation and ingenuity and civilization and modern society, we've lost an important part of what makes us human. I am totally with you if that's what you took away from this movie. I certainly saw all those lessons here, and I could ALMOST buy into them.

But, in the end,  I fell into the second camp and couldn't bring myself to like this movie. Jodie Foster is certainly good in one aspect, but I still couldn't tear my eyes away from her as I continually asked myself, "What the hell does she think she's doing?" I wish I could understand. I think for many viewers, her performance is so off-putting that you almost can't make sense of the rest of the movie.

This isn't a terrible movie. Foster is certainly unique in her role. Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson are very good together. The film tells a different story that can certainly be powerful if you let it. I thought this was a decent film in the end. 6.5/10.

What do you think- is Jodie Foster brilliant here, or out of her mind?

Day 43- Movie 38. The NeverEnding Story (1984)

I absolutely loved this movie as a kid- it's one of my favorite movies from my childhood. I also haven't seen this movie in over 15 years. That is a long, long time and there was no guarantee it would be as good as I remembered. Has anyone noticed that movies from your childhood are oftentimes not nearly as good as you thought they were? That's about as disappointing as it gets.

Luckily, this movie was every bit as a good as I remembered. In fact, in some ways, I appreciated it even more. This movie holds up even today as a pretty amazing fantasy adventure. There's just so much here- rock eaters, giant turtles, a deadly wolf monster, a flying luck dragon, and the nothingness that threatens to destroy it all. I was swept away to that fantastic world, just like I was so  many years ago.

I love the story of a young boy reading a book and being transported to that world. Isn't that what all good books do? You forget yourself for a while- your troubles, your worries, your concerns. For just that short amount of time, you're sharing someone else's life. That is amazing. It is especially powerful as a child- whole new worlds and concepts are opened up to you. This movie accurately captures that feeling, which is unforgettable. I love that this movie entertains while also conveys the message that books are wonderful tools for the imagination. I wish more young people would take the message of this film and read more.

I want to mention Barret Oliver- he did a fantastic job in this film. I'm sad that he no longer acts. Think about it- 90% of his screen time involves reading a book. He has to make reading a book interesting for us to watch. That is a monumental task, and yet, he pulls it off flawlessly. His book reading scenes are equally as thrilling as anything we see in Fantasia. That is amazing to me. I looked forward to his scenes to see how he would react. His wide-eyed wonder was contagious, and really made the movie great.

I also love how the film broke down the fourth wall. Last time I watched this movie, I was too young to fully appreciate what was being done. If you don't remember what I'm talking about, I recommend rewatching the film. It was mind blowing to think about the characters trying to interact with the reader, while also mentioning the audience watching the reader, who was reading about the characters! That was certainly unique, and one of my favorite parts of the entire film. It was subtle, but very interesting to think about. Not too many movies can break the fourth wall so well.

I was nervous going into this film, but I loved it as much as I did when I was younger. This is one of the best fantasy films ever made, and one of the best films of the 80s. I would give this film an 8/10.

So here's the question- best fantasy film from the '80s? Labyrinth? The Dark Crystal?

Day 42- Movie 37. The Kids Are All Right (2010)

The Kids Are All Right is one of those small, Oscar-bait, independenty movies whose performances are better than the actual film. Now, I'm not trying to suggest this is a bad movie. It is actually a very solid, entertaining, funny film about an unconventional, modern family. However, the real reason to watch this movie is to see the entire cast turn in impressive, memorable performances. The actors outshine the film.

This movie is about a lesbian couple (Annette Bening, Julianne Moore) who are surprised when their children (Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson) track down their sperm donor biological father (Mark Ruffalo) and the craziness that happens as a result of him entering their lives. It is a bold topic, and it is handled with respect and maturity. This is an adult movie about adult themes. This is really a film about family- and families can be messy, confusing, frustrating, and more. This film shows all that, but it also displays the heartwarming comfort and unconditional love that comes with family as well.

As I mentioned, the film is really about the performances. Annette Bening is getting most of the buzz for her role, and it is very deserving. She's quite good, and perfectly conveys a wide range of emotions in the film. It looks like the big Academy Award showdown will be Annette Bening (still looking for her first Oscar, after all these years) verses Natalie Portman for her role in Black Swan. Now, the Academy often screws up awards, so I'm making no promises- but I will say this- Bening has no claim to win Best Actress this year. She is very good in this film, but Portman is stunning, frightening, mesmerizing, and unforgettable in Black Swan. If Portman loses to Bening, it will be another huge mistake the Academy has made.

The rest of the cast is very good as well. I loved Julianne Moore here. She's such a terrific actress, and while she oftentimes chooses awful projects, in the right role, there's almost no one better. She worked very well with Bening. Mark Ruffalo got a lot of early buzz for his performance, but that has quieted down in recent months. I thought his performance was a bit uneven, but as a whole, is very solid. I still remember the first time I saw Ruffalo in a movie- I hated him. Over the last several years though, he's emerged as solid actor, and I look forward to his movies now. This film furthered that reputation. Mia Wasikowska has had a heck of a year, with solid performances here and in  the horribly overrated Alice in Wonderland. Josh Hutcherson was surprisingly good as well- I thought his acting was atrocious in Journey to the Center of the Earth, but he worked well here.

I really, really enjoyed the performances in this film. Every member of the cast worked well. I thought the story was unique and interesting. And yet, I didn't love the movie. I thought the conclusion was strangely unsatisfying. It felt like the movie slowly built up the emotions before coming to a too-quick conclusion that felt hastily thrown together. I wanted more. I thought the direction was a bit uneven, which kept me at a distance the entire film, rather than pushing me into these characters' lives.

Still, The Kids Are All Right is worth seeing because of the memorable performances of the cast. I really enjoyed this film, but I would not consider it one of the Top 10 movies of 2010. I would give this film a 7.5/10.

Has anyone seen both The Kids Are All Right and Black Swan? Who deserves the Academy Award, Annette Bening or Natalie Portman? (don't let my opinion sway you)

Day 41- Movie 36. Big Trouble (2002)

Ugh, I'm back to being 5 movies down. This is just relentless. Every single day I wake up, and I'm another movie behind. This week is going to be key- if I don't knock quite a few movies out, this challenge is going to be nearly impossible. So, get ready to read about a lot of movies over the next week.

Today I watched a little known film, Big Trouble. In addition to having a completely forgettable name (which might have contributed to it making only $7 million in theaters), this movie has mostly gone unnoticed over the last 8 years. I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention it, and I only vaguely knew of it myself. I was surprised to see the pretty impressive cast:

Tim Allen, Rene Russo, Stanley Tucci, Tom Sizemore, Johnny Knoxville, Dennis Farina, Janeane Garofalo, Zooey Deschanel, Patrick Warburton, Ben Foster, Omar Epps, Jason Lee, Sophia Vergara, Andy Richter, and DJ Qualls.

I don't care what kind of movie watcher you are, with a cast like that, this movie becomes a must-see. I am still just stunned at all the actors involved in this film. It's also directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, who's created some memorable movies over the years.

Unfortunately, the movie is a bit of a mess. The film moves at a frantic, breakneck pace. There are so many characters with so many story lines, and they all converge at different points in the movie. It's all the audience can do to hold on. The good thing about this is that the movie moves so quickly that there is little to no time to actually think about what's happening on screen. This is helpful, because the story is pretty ridiculous and far fetched. However, it almost never dawns on you while you're watching because things are moving so quickly. Only at the end of the movie does it become apparent that the film is somewhat weak.

Despite the ridiculous plot, this is a fairly decent comedy. In those big ensemble movies, it oftentimes feels like you never get to spend enough time with any of the characters. While that happens here and there, this movie does a very good job of making sure we have time enough to connect and understand the characters. That's rare to find. While I didn't love this movie, I admit the frantic pace kept me interested throughout the film. I would give this film a decent 6.5/10.

Has anyone seen this movie? What do you think- it is awful, is it horribly underrated? If you haven't seen it, I recommend checking it out. It's not a great movie, but it's worth seeing for the cast alone.

Day 37- Movie 35. Grown Ups (2010)

Movies like this make me wonder if I'm a sucker. The film just looked so stupid to me, and I grew so sick of the commercials, which seemed to air constantly for six months. I wanted to slap that little girl every time she said "I want to get chocolate wasted!" I watched this movie fully intending to hate it. And, as often happens with Adam Sandler movies, my head says I should hate the movie, but I just can't do it.

I'm not suggesting that Grown Ups is a good movie. On the contrary, it's oftentimes stupid, unfunny, and poorly, poorly acted. And yet, in between those bad moments are some legitimately funny ones as well. Even though I knew I shouldn't like the film, I found myself enjoying it.

So much of that enjoyment comes from the cast. Even though their acting is pretty bad, there's something truly fun about watching Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade, and Rob Schneider together on screen. While most of their banter felt forced and unfunny, there were moments when you could tell these guys all really do like each other, and were having fun being on screen together. Those small moments were the most enjoyable of the film. Like most of Sandler's movies, this one is ultimately harmless. Whether you like his humor or not, he's made a career of being just funny enough, while never really trying to push the envelope. This PG-13 movie follows that trend, playing it safe by having a few raunchy moments, but nothing that would really offend people too much. Sometimes I get sick of watching the same thing over and over, but there's also something reassuring about knowing exactly what you'll get out of a Sandler film.

Now that I've said why this movie was better than I expected, I should also say why this movie isn't very good. I've mentioned the poor acting. There are so many moments in this film that tried to be funny, but just failed. The actors are all smiling and laughing like something funny just happened, but the audience knows the truth. This is a film that pretended to be far funnier than it actually was. I was also surprised at how little Chris Rock was actually in the film. It felt like the other actors all had bigger roles, and he got pushed out. He's arguably the funniest member of the cast, and I wish he had a bigger part. Many of the jokes are lame and have been done before. We actually have someone fall face-first into a big pile of crap, and then (prepare yourselves)- he gets pushed face-first into it again! HILARIOUS! And then later, another person falls face-first, but this time into a pie! Oh my God, I almost can't stand the insanity! It's these lazy moments that really hurt the movie.

So, all I can say is that while Grown Ups is not a good movie, Sandler and company once again do just enough so that I don't hate the movie. I thought it was a decent comedy, but this is a very, very uneven movie. There were parts I loved ("It's drizzling twos" made me laugh out loud), but there were many parts that I hated. I'm being generous here, but I'd give this film a 6.5/10.

So here's the big question- best Adam Sandler movie? I really liked Happy Gilmore and Anger Management, but I have to say my all time favorite is The Wedding Singer. That is just such a terrific movie.

Day 36- Movie 34. Triumph of the Spirit (1989)

I'm actually surprised I didn't like this movie more. It seemed like the type of film that would be a home run- it's the story of a Jewish boxer in World War II, who is sent to a concentration camp. There, he must fight- and win- or be killed. It stars Willem Dafoe and Robert Loggia. I was expecting an emotional, powerful, uplifting human story about how the best of humanity can be found even in the midst of the humanity's worst. I expected to be moved by the story, and leave the movie feeling better for having watched it. None of this actually happens.

I was shocked at the hollowness of this movie- it never seemed awful or bad, just very much devoid of any heart. It felt like a movie with everything you'd expect on the surface, but underneath, something was clearly missing. It doesn't surprise me that audiences didn't really connect with this film. When it was released in 1989, it made a little over $480,000. It was limited release, but people were obviously not flocking to see it.

These kinds of movies intrigue me, because it really should have worked. The film portrays life in a concentration camp in pretty gritty detail. In fact, this was the first movie to be filmed at the actual Auschwitz death camp. That is crazy to me. The director went to painstaking lengths to ensure every single detail of the film was accurate. He accomplished that. And yet, for all that effort, the movie just falls short. Willem Dafoe, Edward James Olmos, and Robert Loggia all give good performances, and I can't really fault them. There are some very "emotional" moments (people do die here, after all) that felt a bit too manipulative. I love when movies can touch an emotional chord, but I don't like when they feel like they're pulling on the heartstrings for disingenious reasons. This movie crossed that line a few times.

I didn't hate this movie, but I didn't really like it, either. It's not a bad movie, but it is missing something. The movie promises a powerful story, but ultimately fails to deliver. I felt no feelings of truimph here. I'll give this film a decent 6.5/10.

On a related note, I really appreciate films about the Holocaust. They are obviously not easy movies to watch, but that was such a shameful, disgusting, evil, horrendous event in human history, and I don't think we should forget it. Movies bring the evil that was done to vivid, memorable light, and I think that is important for future generations to see. That being said- what are the greatest movies about the Holocaust? I think you have to go with 1. Schindler's List. 2. Life is Beautiful. What else belongs up there?

Day 35- Movie 33. Absence of Malice (1981)

Absence of Malice is a very good movie about newspapers and reporters, about the ethical considerations they must make in the course of the job, and it is about the search for the truth, and how sometimes something untrue can be accurate. While I watched this movie, it made me sad to think that they won't make movies like this anymore. Newspaper reporters are an endangered species, and their influence on America seems to be at an all-time low. The 24 hour news networks and the internet changed all that. I'm not opposed to this per se, but I do lament the loss of the great newspaper movies (for example, the terrific All the President's Men).

I really believe this movie has been overlooked and forgotten in recent years. It was nominated for 3 Academy Awards, and in a different year, with different competition, might have won some. The movie features very strong performances by Paul Newman and Sally Field. These two acting heavyweights are a great pair, and work well with each other. I've always been a fan of Field- she gives such strong, willful performances. Newman is terrific here, as always. I was impressed with how effortless the performance appeared. It was easy for me to dismiss his performance because it never actually felt like he was acting. He's truly one of the greatest actors of all time, and he showed that here. I also have to mention Wilford Brimley, who gives a scene-stealing, unforgettable performance near the end. It's too bad his screen time was so short, because he was the best part of the entire film. Oh, and this movie is directed by Sydney Pollack. The people involved were all top notch.

While this is a good movie, it doesn't completely surprise me that it has been somewhat forgotten by mainstream audiences. The movie isn't as accessible as many films- you really have to work to understand the meaning and the movie's major themes. The story is complex and twisting, and if you aren't paying attention, it is easy to get lost. The movie never really comes out and says what it's all about- this is a movie that asks some tough questions about ethics and morality in the newspaper business. It holds up a mirror to the media, and the view isn't very pretty. It challenges all of us to do better and to take a hard look at what we consider right and wrong.

I really enjoyed this movie. It talks about integrity in a way that isn't preachy. I love movies that are entertaining, but also have some powerful lessons as well. This movie made me think about ethics and how easy it is to twist any action to make it appear in a positive light. While we can lie to ourselves and others all we want, ultimately, it's us that has to live with the truth. I would give this film a solid 7.5/10.

If you haven't seen this movie, I'd recommend checking it out. It's a solid, well acted drama. This isn't the type of film that begs to be seen- you really have to search it out. It's worth the effort though, as it's a really good movie.

Day 34- Movie 32. How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

I'm going to start this off with a controversial statement- I thought Dreamworks' How to Train Your Dragon was a better movie than Toy Story 3. I don't know how many people would agree with me, and Toy Story 3 will probably win the Academy Award for Best Animated Film. I'm not trying to take anything away from that film- it was a solid, entertaining, funny third entry, and it ended that trilogy in about as good of a way as you could expect. I enjoyed that movie immensely. And yet, I wasn't blown away by it. I got exactly what I expected. Some of that might be the insanely high expectations Pixar has set for itself, but I thought Toy Story 3 met them- it didn't quite exceed them.

On the other hand, How to Train Your Dragon was a surprisingly great movie. The film was absolutely incredible to look at- the colors, the people, the dragons- it all flowed together in a picturesque way. The movie is truly beautiful. The animators did an outstanding job and everything looks so crisp and clear. I immediately got sucked into the world because it came to life so vividly on screen.

The voice cast was impressive. Jay Baruchel has such a unique voice, and it was perfect for Hiccup. I'm not a huge fan of him as an actor, but his voice work was incredible. Gerard Butler was inspired casting as his father. Butler surprised me with how well he brought his character to life. The rest of the supporting cast is very good, too- American Ferrera, Jonah Hill, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse were all recognizable, yet didn't overwhelm the character with their voice.

I was a huge fan of the story, too. It was a surprisingly emotional tale about acceptance, revisiting our assumptions, innovation, and friendship. The movie has some powerful lessons for kids, but it never came across as preachy or cheesy. I thought the film blended those important themes into the story in an exceptional way. The movie mixed action, drama, and comedy extremely well together. It all came together in beautiful fashion on screen.

As you can tell, I am a big fan of this movie. I knew critics loved the film, but I didn't expect to like it so much myself. After years and years of Pixar getting the best of Dreamworks, I'm glad that Dreamworks finally hit a home run with this film. I would give How to Train Your Dragon an 8/10.

So, here's the question- What has been the best animated film of the year? I haven't seen Despicable Me or Megamind yet, but with Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon, this is already an excellent year for animated films. I'm not opposed to the viewpoint that Toy Story 3 is the better film- I could probably talk myself into believing that was the better film. For me, though, I was much more excited after finishing this movie. It's tough because both were so good.