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.

Day 81- Movie 76. Stowaway (1936)

After watching five bad movies in a row, I decided to switch things up a bit. I went with a film from the 1930s, starring Shirley Temple. Now, I take pride in the fact that I've seen a lot of movies. And yet, despite all my efforts to watch a wide variety of films, I've never actually gotten around to seeing a Shirley Temple movie before. That is somewhat shocking, considering Temple is perhaps the most famous child star of all time. She was the biggest box office draw for several years in a row. Her movies are famous, and yet, I never watched a single one. I was determined to end that tonight.

I chose Stowaway, which is not regarding as one of Temple's best movies, but a good one nevertheless. It was certainly an interesting viewing experience. I was very intrigued to see what all the fuss was about Shirley Temple. I can see why audiences in the 1930s would love her. Temple overflows with squeaky-clear wholesomeness. Audiences couldn't get enough of her. She was charismatic and had real screen presence- she could sing, dance, and act. She had a glowing smile, which I'm sure people just found adorable. She was the perfect child actor.

And yet, I couldn't fully buy into her performance. I'll admit her sugary sweet goodness got a little tiresome for me. There's nothing wrong with having a precocious girl brimming with positiveness, but it just got to be a little much. It was almost hard to believe. I wish they had showed a little restraint with her character instead of letting those good vibes overtake all aspects of the film. Still, you have to respect Temple for delivering what audiences so clearly desired.

This film felt like it was probably a bit of a misstep. I'm sure Temple's other films are better. In this movie, she is an orphan who grew up in China and befriends an American playboy and an engaged woman. The story is fine (if predictable), but there's some big flaws in this film. For one, Temple spouts off these bizarre Chinese proverbs throughout the entire movie. It's really quite strange, and gets annoying rather quickly. She came on really strong anyway, but the constant riddled proverbs proved to be too much.

While I didn't love this movie, I suppose it is mostly harmless. It mixes different genres quite well- musical, comedy, romance, and even a little drama. The story is enjoyable, although the movie telegraphs the ending pretty clearly. Speaking of the ending, it's a bit absurd. It all started to fall apart for me a bit the last 5 minutes. I guess this is a movie that certainly has strengths, but unfortunately, has some obvious flaws that really hurt it.

I would give Stowaway a 6.5/10. I actually thought I would have liked this better, but the film's flaws proved to be too troublesome. I just couldn't overlook them, and they prevent the film from achieving its full potential.

I'm interesting in seeing more Shirley Temple movies. She certainly has unbounded energy, but it needs to be controlled to a certain extent. It strayed into annoying territory here. It doesn't surprise me that her career dried up as she got older- her cuteness could only last so long. She loses effectiveness the older that she gets. I suppose that's why she made four movies a year while she was still young. You have to strike while the iron is hot. Anyway, this was an interesting film, but certainly not a great one.

Well, I did my 3 movies for today. I'm very tired, and I'm still 5 movies behind pace. I'm running out of days (is it really only 19 days away?). That means tomorrow needs to be another big day. I need to sleep and rest my eyes, or this constant movie watching will drive me crazy. I should reread this to make sure I didn't make any typing errors, but I honestly don't have the energy. Forgive me if I made any mistakes. Night.

Day 81- Movie 75. Jason X (2002)

So they move the Friday the 13th franchise 455 years into the future, and they still come up with an awful movie. That is pretty disappointing. After the terrible Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, the franchise took a much needed 9 year break. The franchise had grown stale and worse and worse over time. Stopping the constant stream of bad movies was a terrific idea. And then, at some point, someone came up with a "brilliant" idea- let's bring Jason back, but this time, put him in the future!

I suppose in some way, this was a good move. Jason certainly grew tiresome in the present, so perhaps he would be more effective in the future. I kind of see that logic. I'm not sure this has ever been done before- take an established character and set him in a new movie, 455 years in the future. I appreciate this film trying something different and trying to be original. This franchise badly needs originality and creativity.

Unfortunately, it's not enough just to change the setting if you're going to deliver the same stupid movie anyway. I enjoyed next to nothing about this film. The future setting is cool, but it's the same exact storyline- people are killed one by one in various gruesome ways before a final showdown that destroys Jason forever... or does it? It's completely predictable.

I also have the say that the movie dropped the ball on the future tech. The script was very poorly written. So, it's 455 years in the future and we have technology that can immediately reattach a severed limb, but a spaceship doesn't have a central computer that could locate lifeforms on board? Maybe I'm getting a bit too geeky here, but the technology of the future was inconsistent and it made no sense at all. It only contributed to the absolutely moronic plot.

I just think this movie is so stupid. There's almost nothing that happens here that has any basis in reality, no matter what year it is. We have characters who are about to die who are making wisecracks. That's really stupid. We have a character who gets scared because he hears someone behind him, and thinking it is someone playing a trick on him, puts earphones in and turns back to work. What rational human being would do something so stupid? Ugh, it's so frustrating when people make a movie purely to make money and don't take the time to actually consider things like logic or reality.

I actually had hopes that this movie might have been different- that it would have reversed the trend of a franchise that has disappointed for decades. It didn't. To be fair, I definitely appreciate any shot at doing something different or taking a risk. Setting this film in 2455 was cool, even if it ultimately didn't matter. Besides a nice try with that, this film fails on almost every single level. I'll give this bomb a 5/10.

What a stupid movie.

Day 81- Movie 74. Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)

In my opinion, the Resident Evil movies are remarkably consistent. None of them are actually good, but they're all pretty decent movies. There are completely absurd moments, huge plot holes, and laughable dialogue. But, there's also fairly impressive action sequences in every film as well. I actually gave all three films the same rating (something that doesn't happen very often)- 6.5. There was always things I liked, and things I did not.

And so, that brings us to the fourth Resident Evil movie. Alice is back again, ready to bring the fight to the Umbrella Corporation while avoiding the marauding horde of zombies always ready for a meal. The story is basically just a slight variation of the previous movies. This might have been okay, because I'd be happy as long as the film was entertaining. And yet, unfortunately, this film is the weakest of the franchise. It's not that this movie does anything especially worse than previous installments, but the whole thing is just getting tiresome.

The Resident Evil movies have always been poorly written (sorry Paul W.S. Anderson). There's always plot holes, gaps in logic and so many far-fetched events. I can go with this as long as the movie still manages to entertain. Unfortunately, in Afterlife, there are just some completely ridiculous moments. At one point, a door opens and a character says, "It's a trap." And immediately, all three walk through the door. That's just lazy writing. There are so many weak moments like this throughout the film. Ultimately, it made this movie hard to take seriously.

While I didn't hate this movie, I started to tire of the franchise. There was enough here to support three movies- I'm not sure about four. Now, I did enjoy certain parts of the movie. There's something fun about watching people fire automatic weapons at hundreds of zombies in an attempt to stay alive. That doesn't change. This film was 3D, but the 3D scenes in 2D weren't too distracting. I appreciated that. There are some very cool action scenes in this movie. I loved that aspect of it. While none of this movie really matters, it's fun in a mindless, effortless way.

Still, Resident Evil: Afterlife is a step down from previous installments. It's not a huge step down, but I just couldn't give this film a 6.5. I'll give this movie a 6/10.

So, if they decide to make a fifth (5 movies, my god) Resident Evil movie, I'll probably end up seeing it. However, if this is the last film in the franchise, I wouldn't mind that, either.

Day 80- Movie 73. Examined Life (2008)

I don't watch documentaries very often, but I've generally impressed with the genre. Documentaries are typically made with care by people who are passionate about the subject being examined. They are a terrific way to entertain, but also to inform. With that in mind, I was excited about watching Examined Life, a film that turns the camera on some of the most well known philosophers today, and lets them wax on about subjects dear to their heart. I was excited to watch a thought-provoking, intellectually stimulating film. Unfortunately, this movie sucks.

The biggest problem I have is not with the content, but with the way the movie was filmed. Director Astra Taylor is not a very good filmmaker. The movie is structured around seven or eight philosophers, who have about 10 minutes each to talk about something they care about in the field of philosophy. This part is fine. However, Taylor films them while walking down busy streets in NYC, riding in a car, walking along a lake, etc. The problem is that this is very visually distracting. I was trying to listen to people convey some very brainy, difficult to grasp concepts while hearing background noise and watching people walk past, occasionally looking at the camera, or any of a hundred other things people do. It was so, so hard to stay focused because my eyes were pulled around the screen. I thought this ruined the movie.

There were, though, other issues. The quality of the interviews are not all the same. Some interviews were poignant and fascinating to listen to- others were dry, all over the place, and otherwise impossible to follow (perhaps not for people smarter than I, but I got lost). Several scenes are nearly unwatchable. I wish these philosophers were more interested in trying to educate, and less interested in trying to sound as intellectual as possible. These interviewees might be brilliant, but brilliance alone is not enough. They need to be able to communicate effectively, especially to someone without a PhD in philosophy. I'm not trying to suggest they should dumb down their message, but talking over most people's level of intellect is not a positive thing. I got bored easily.

I do appreciate that this film got me thinking about some of the more esoteric, abstract elements of what it means to be a thinking, rational human. I appreciate intellect, and these philosophers obviously have it. There were some very fascinating thought exercises going on here, and it is nice to see passionate people speak intelligently about something they care so much about. I have no doubt that this movie probably kills in philosophy PhD classes. Unfortunately, for the common man, this movie is inaccessible, boring, and distracting. I love the idea of this film, I simply hated the execution.

For this reason, I'm giving Examined Life a 5/10, and I have to say that this is one of the worst documentaries I've ever seen. For a remarkably consistent genre, this one stands out as a complete miss. Director Astra Taylor certainly created something here, but it's not something for which I want any part. This movie could have been powerful and influential. Instead, it's stodgy, boring and pretentious.

Day 80- Movie 72. Darkness Falls (2003)

I'm not afraid to admit this movie scares me. I'm not saying that it will keep me up at night or make me afraid of the dark or anything to that extent, but the movie is hard for me to watch. The Tooth Fairy just so creepy, and the film does such a good job with the sound effects that I just feel very uneasy throughout the whole thing. I've seen a lot of horror movies, and I barely bat an eye at them. I don't typically feel uncomfortable with horror of any kind, but this movie just freaks me out.

The story is a bit crazy. There's basically a deranged tooth fairy who haunts the town of Darkness Falls. If you see her, she's determined to kill you. However, she can only get you if you venture away from the light and into the darkness. Just writing all that makes me realize how ridiculous the whole film is. The story is pretty absurd, and I recognized this even as I watched it. The plot is filled with cliches, so many unrealistic things happen, and the dialogue is occasionally laughable. This is a weak movie, except for the fact that it's pretty creepy. Plus, the first 15 minutes is about as uncomfortable as I've felt watching a horror movie.

I like movies where people have to stay in the light. I think it's a cool concept, and it creates some obvious but thrilling moments. I think the light/dark aspect was easily the best part of Pitch Black. It's fun to watch people trying to stay in the light so that they don't die. This movie uses that pretty effectively, although it does occasionally go way too over-the-top.

So this movie has wooden acting, weak, one-dimensional characters, a poor story, huge gaps of logic and reason, and other assorted flaws. There's so many reasons here for me to hate this movie. And yet, I can't bring myself to hate it. The reason is because the Tooth Fairy is just so damn scary.

I love that this film willingly shows us so much of the supernatural entity that is causing death and destruction. Too often, films are afraid to do this- they are afraid the ghost or goblin or whatever will be too silly if you see it too much on screen. We only get the faintest glimpses here and there. That can certainly be effective, but there's something inherently awesome about a film willing to give the villain some serious screen time. In this film, it makes all the difference in the world. The Tooth Fairy just looks so scary with her porcelain mask and billowing dark robes. She looks like Death itself, which is pretty freaky. On top of this, the sound effects people did a fantastic job of delivering some truly chilling, unforgettable screams and groans that were pretty chilling to hear. The visual aspects combined with the sound makes the Tooth Fairy a very creepy character indeed.

I usually hate stupid horror movies, and by most accounts, Darkness Falls could be considered one. I completely sympathize with anyone who hates this movie. I can definitely understand why someone would. And yet, for me, I just feel too off-balance and creeped out to hate it. The movie created emotion in me (which is what the great movies do) It might not have been one of actual fear, but I felt legitimately uncomfortable. I jumped several times, and I felt nervous while watching it. (and this is actually the second time I've seen it- I saw it in theaters in '03). I felt like this movie did a good job of trying to be scary.

So, the film's flaws prevent it from being a good movie, but this is still far better than it had any reason to be. If you told me I'd feel scared watching a film about a demonic tooth fairy, I would have laughed at you. And yet, this film pulled it off. I really think this is an underrated horror movie. I didn't love it, but I have to admit it was memorable. I'd give this film a 6.5/10.

Anyone else want to own up to a movie scaring you? For me, the ultimate one was the first time I saw The Ring, in theaters. I was glancing all around me the whole way back during that long, dark drive from Parkersburg to Marietta. That movie freaked me out, and is still one of my all-time favorite horror movies.

Day 79- Movie 71. Machete (2010)

Did we really need this movie? I mean, maybe, but I'm not convinced. On the one hand, I think the idea of basing a feature length film on a fake trailer from another movie is a clever, original idea. On the other hand, basing a movie on a fake trailer is a pretty stupid idea (I know the fake trailer was itself based on the fully written screenplay by Robert Rodriguez, but still). I suppose people who love B movies and exploitation films will probably like this movie. I personally found it absurd, nonsensical, and overall, not a very good movie at all.

However, it's hard to judge a film when it goes so out of the way to be purposely ridiculous. The film features some of the cheesiest dialogue I've ever heard, more gruesome violence than is necessary, and so many absurd moments that I completely lost track. And yet, that's exactly what this film was trying to achieve. So, in that light, you could call this movie a success.

And yet, for me, it's not a complete success. The story is about a Mexican ex-federale, Machete, who tracks down a whole host of bad men and kills them for various reasons. It's all very confusing and not exactly entertaining. Well, I suppose if mindless, nonstop violence is entertaining, then you may be entertained. I personally prefer some reason for violence, which this film wasn't interested in providing. There's definitely a story involved, but it almost doesn't really matter. The film is all about violence.

As much as I want to hate this movie, I understand that it's not that simple. I really believe that to a certain extent, movies should be judged based on what they were trying to be. You can't rate a movie like Machete the same way you'd rate an Academy Award contender, because this film was never trying to be that kind of movie. While I can't say I'm the biggest fan of exploitation movies, this movie was a pretty effective one. It doesn't really matter if that's the kind of movie I like or not- that's what Machete is. You have to respect that.

As far as the cast, I suppose you have to given Danny Trejo credit for bringing Machete to life. He's not a fantastic actor, but he was the only person who could play this character effectively. I don't have any criticisms of him. The rest of the cast is impressive, although they don't all work as well. Robert De Niro, Jeff Fahey, and Steven Seagal all have meaty enough parts to be pretty enjoyable to watch. Jessica Alba isn't a great actress, and that shows here. Michelle Rodriguez was pretty good, and I have to say I've been increasingly impressed with her as an actress, even in a film like this. I love Cheech Marin, and I loved him in this film. He greatly helped it and I'm glad he was in it. Lindsay Lohan had no real point to her character and was mostly a huge waste of time. Big surprise there.

I admit I'm struggling with this film. On the one hand, it's a loud, obnoxious, absurd, extremely violent, offensive, ultimately pointless movie. And yet, that's exactly what it was trying to be. How do you judge that? I have to say that I didn't really enjoy Machete, but I couldn't completely hate it, either. I want to give this film a 5.5, but I have to admit it's probably better than that. While not good, I'll give it a 6/10.

If you liked Grindhouse: Death Proof and Grindhouse: Planet Terror, you'll probably love Machete. If you didn't see those movies or didn't like them, then I can't imagine why you'd want to watch this movie. It certainly isn't for everyone.

I apologize for the confusing, nonsensical parts of this review. However, you simply can't spend 105 minutes watching a movie like Machete and have any hope of thinking straight.

Day 78- Movie 70. Hook (1991)

I used to absolutely love Hook when I was younger. I remember watching it over and over again. Since that time, I haven't seen this film at all. It's been at least 15 years since I last saw it. I was interested to see how it held up over time. I can say that although the movie is still very good, it wasn't quite as good as I remembered.

I do believe Steven Spielberg deserves credit for creating such an elaborate, impressive world here. Neverland has never looked so good. This film was nominated for 5 Academy Awards- Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, and Best Original Song. Four out of the five relate to the visual look of the film- it's certainly impressive by 1991 standards.

If you don't remember, the film is about an adult Peter Pan (Robin Williams), all grown up and has completely forgotten about his adventures in Neverland. When his children are kidnapped by Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman), he must venture into Neverland, remember who he really is, and save them. The film is pretty fascinating because of that central question- "What if the boy who would never grow up actually did grow up?" I always think it is fascinating when familiar stories are given a new infusion (that's probably why I enjoyed Wicked- the book and the play). I loved watching the continued adventures of Peter and Captain Hook.

The cast is pretty good. Robin Williams works well as the adult Peter. He's more reserved than in many films, but he does have the opportunity to showcase some of his trademark humor and energy. I liked him in the role. I loved Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook, although he did go a bit over-the-top with the performance. It was cool seeing Julia Roberts in a smaller role as Tinkerbell. It's also fun to see Gwyneth Paltrow in an extremely small, very early career role. I even have to mention Bob Hoskins, who's pretty excellent in a small role.

There's a few aspects of this movie that I didn't like, and wouldn't have been aware of as a 10 or 11 year old. It's actually pretty disturbing to think about Peter Pan abandoning the lost boys for decades, returning, getting their leader killed, and then abandoning them again. It's a bit disturbing. The story itself is occasionally hard to believe. The story definitely could have been tighter and more effective. The movie surprisingly long, at 144 minutes. It needed to be shorter.

Still, I loved Hook as a kid, and I still very much enjoy it today. The film is flawed, but it's still a pretty good adventure that gives a new spin to a familiar story and characters. I'd give this film a solid 7.5/10.

Well, the week is half over. I've managed to at least not lose any more ground. My weekend is looking busier than I expected, but I absolutely need to get caught up. I finally reached 70 films, which is a pretty big accomplishment. On the other hand, I'm still 8 days behind. I don't think there's any chance I can get all the way caught up by the end of the weekend, but I certainly need to close the gap.

Day 77- Movie 69. Private Benjamin (1980)

One of the things I love doing is having Netflix encourage me to watch certain movies. I have about 400 movies in my Instant Queue, and if you look through that list, there are certain films that expire, and are no longer available for instant viewing. I do my best to stay on top of this, and try to watch those movies before they expire. The reason that I like doing this is that it is extra motivation for me to watch specific films. For example, Private Benjamin. I probably would never have gotten around to seeing this film if Netflix didn't tell me I had to watch it tonight, or it would be gone from instant viewing. It would have just gotten lost among the other 400 movies.

That's not to say I especially liked this movie. I thought it was fine, but mostly a regular, average comedy. The story is about a woman (Goldie Hawn) who has spent her life identifying herself through her relationships. When her new husband unexpectedly dies, she decides to join the U.S. Army. She great underestimates what that entails, and hilarity supposedly ensues. The film doesn't quite nail the story- it certainly could have been more effective.

What I liked about this film is the message. The film is geared towards women, but really applies to anyone. The message is that you can do anything if you want it badly enough. It's about achieving more than you ever thought possible, simply by having the will and determination to stick it out in the face of severe adversity. I think that's a good message. Considering this film came out in 1980, I think it also delivers a good message to women, who historically have not had the same opportunities men have had in their careers. There's certainly something empowering about watching a woman succeed in a field typically thought of as male-dominated. I'm not sure the message is as powerful today as it was in 1980, but it's a good message nevertheless.

My problem with this movie is that it loses effectiveness right when it finally wins the audience over. I'm going to hint at certain events in the film, but I'll keep it as vague as I can. Still, if you're planning on watching this for the first time, I'll send out a SPOILER WARNING, just in case. We watch Hawn as she struggles to adapt to life in the military. As a spoiled, sheltered girl, she's obviously horrible as being a solider. And yet, over time, she adapts to the life, and even succeeds in the Army. That's a pretty powerful feel good moment. And yet, at the height of her achievement, the movie shifts gears abruptly, sends her to Europe, and we get this weak love story. The movie does redeem itself in the last 10 minutes, but there's a 25 minute stretch where most of the effectiveness built up is lost.

While I thought this was a decent movie, I was a bit surprised that this film was nominated for 3 Academy Awards. Let's break them down. Best Actress in a Leading Role- Goldie Hawn. I suppose this nomination could be considered worthy, although I'm a bit surprised. Hawn is certainly good in the role, but I don't know if she's THAT good. I bet the Academy was impressed that Hawn went through so much physicality in the film. In that regard, it's probably good she received a nom. Also, probably a good call that she didn't win.

Second up, Best Supporting Actress- Eileen Brennan. Now, I've always like Brennan quite a bit, so I don't want to say anything bad about her. I thought she was fine here, but not exactly great. She's been far better in other films throughout her career. I have to wonder if this nomination was a bit of a "career recognition" move, as this is her only Academy Award nomination. I'm glad she was recognized, but this isn't among her best performances.

Finally, Best Original Screenplay. I suppose this film may deserve the nomination here. The first 70 minutes and the last 10 are certainly good, but its troubling that there's that long stretch that just seems significantly less effective than the rest of the film. Oh well, again, I question whether it was truly deserving, but it's not a huge crime, either. I'll just wrap this up by saying it doesn't surprise me this film didn't win any Oscars.

So, in conclusion, there's a lot to like here, but a few areas that really hold the film back. It wasn't a bad movie, just not as effective as it could have been. I'll give Private Benjamin a 6.5/10.

On the 100 in 100 front, I'm just trying to maintain by hitting 1 film a day during the week, and I'll  make another big push this weekend. I certainly think achieving this goal is possible, but I admit, thinking about watching 31 movies in the next 23 days is a daunting prospect. I had to psych myself up to watch a movie tonight. I would have preferred not to. Oh well, another day closer, and another movie done. See you tomorrow.

Day 76- Movie 68. Red (2010)

Despite everything Red had going for it, I just couldn't get excited about the movie. Sure, it had a great cast and it certainly looked like fun, but I wasn't convinced. I could not have been more wrong. I'm surprised how much I liked this movie. I can't remember the last time I had so much fun watching an action movie. This is a great movie.

To simplify the plot, four retired CIA agents (Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren) come out of retirement to find out who is trying to kill them. There's actually so much more involved in this fast-paced, entertaining movie.  I love the different layers of this film. It seems like a straightforward story, but it's surprisingly complex and involved. Sure, parts were a bit absurd, but it's all in good fun.

So much of the film's success comes from the cast. It is so much fun watching four great actors like Willis, Freeman, Malkovich, and Mirren working together. Seeing them on screen was just so enjoyable. I love their relaxed demeanor- it really felt like they were old, old friends seeing each other again. The casting was perfect. While they are all superb, I think the most important role belongs to Mary-Louise Parker. Parker serves as the audience's surrogate- the ordinary person caught in events way over her head. I'm not sure why Parker isn't a bigger star- she's a terrific actress, and in many ways, was the best part of the film (Willis is close, though). I loved her interactions with the rest of the cast. These were some of the funniest moments of the film.

As if Willis, Freeman, Malkovich, Mirren, and Parker weren't enough, the rest of the cast is almost unbelievable. We have Brian Cox as a Russian agent, Karl Urban as the young, ambitious agent tracking the retired ones down. We have Richard Dreyfuss (God I love Richard Dreyfuss) in a meaty role. The cast is one of the best I have ever seen.

I loved how this movie perfectly blended action and comedy. Sometimes one of those comes at the expense of the other, but it was perfectly balanced in this film. This is a movie you can just sit back and enjoy. I watch a lot of movies, and they are all enjoyable in different ways. However, this movie was effortlessly enjoyable. I could watch it again and again. It required no work, no effort to enjoy. It was a truly fun movie.

I didn't expect to be so blown away by this film, but I was. I can't remember the last time I had so much fun watching a movie. Like many action movies, it requires you to just go with some of the more far-fetched events, but the payoff is worth it. I really, really enjoyed this movie. I'll give Red a well deserved 8/10.

I enjoyed this movie so much that I'd be eager for the sequel, but I'm also completely happy with this just being a stand alone film. What do you think- stop now, or does this movie deserve a sequel?

Day 75- Movie 67. Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo (1999)

I'll be honest- I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on this movie. I tend to shy away from most of Rob Schneider's movies. I don't want to belabor the point because I really believe Schneider is an easy target. I don't want to attack him too much, even though he completely sucks as an actor. But, I do have to ask the question- has Schneider ever been responsible for making a good movie? I don't mean to suggest that he's never been in a good film- he's had small, insignificant roles in good films in his career. Has he ever starred in or actually made a difference in a film that was legitimately, truly good? I can't think of one.

Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo is a pretty stupid movie. I think most people (even fans) would agree with that. This isn't very intellectual humor. And yet, I have to point out some positives- this film could have gone in a completely different direction than it did. The film actually tried to have some heart, and delivered a pretty positive message. Deuce might be the worst gigolo in the world, but what the film preaches is that people are really just looking for an emotional connection- people want to be treated fairly and with dignity. This is really a movie about looking past the defects that cause some people to be ridiculed or avoided by society. Despite what makes people different, we're really all the same, and we all deserve love and happiness. I can't believe I got that message from this movie, but I did. I think that's pretty cool.

This movie does have some good scenes. There's a sprinkling of legitimate comedy in this otherwise mindless mess of a movie. I did laugh several times. While so much of the film is stupid and unfunny, I couldn't bring myself to hate it. The movie does try for some gross out humor, but at its heart, it is a fairly tame movie. The envelope could have been pushed so much more than it was.

I really wouldn't recommend this movie, but if you compare Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo to some of the other crap movies Schneider's made, this one looks good in comparison. I'll give this film a generous 6/10.

Ok, enough of that. I need to do a 100 in 100 update. I am now at day 75. Unfortunately, I'm still pretty far behind. I do want to point out that I've watched 8 movies in the last two days, which is pretty ridiculous. Despite all that effort, I'm still sitting 8 behind. That means I now have 25 days to watch 33 movies. This is by no means impossible, but it certainly won't be very easy. Here's a visual representation of my efforts so far:

As you can see, there's only been a few days where I've actually been caught up. Most of the time, I've been trying to make up lost ground. That makes me nervous, because time is running out. I had a big weekend (counting Friday, that's 10 movies in 3 days), but I need to have a solid week, plus another big weekend to try and get caught up. There's no way I can replicate this same level of movie watching next weekend. I actually do have other things going on in my life, and I just can't sit still for this long again. Still, I need to hunker down over the next 25 days if I want to accomplish this.

Ok, that's it for me. Thanks for reading. Oh, I have a big list of movies people have recommended to me. If you sent me a recommendation, don't think I've forgotten it. I have it all written down. A lot of the movies I've watched recently are films on Netflix Instant Viewing that were set to expire, so some of these have been dictated for me. I'm going to find time to hit up some of the recommended movies in the next week or so.

Happy Valentine's Day, my friends.