1954 - On the Waterfront

Lyndsay: Well, hmm. This one was ok. Essentially it is about a young man who doesn't think much of himself, gets involved with the mob, and is subsequently faced with moral dilemmas, which build character and a sense of self-worth. It is a story we've all heard before and will continue to hear over and over again. Because of that, I got bored. In addition, the time frame and lack of back-story make it somewhat unrealistic, particularly the over-night love story. Having said that, the acting is good and although the plot-line is overdone, the movie promotes moral awareness and self-reflection in a way that is "cool." That is hard to do, and something I can only support. In addition, Marlon Brando is so darn sexy, and reminds me of my handsome, stoic, eye-brow scarred man, so bonus points there. Grade: C.

Jon: Although this is part of Brando's elite first five films, this one is a little boring. We start with Terry Mulloy (Brando) helping the mob whack a canary, and slowly throughout the film his sentiments change and he begins to work against his fellow mobsters, advocating workers' rights on the waterfront docks and of course, dabbling in romance with Edie Doyle (Eve Marie Saint). His acting is still revolutionary and certainly made movies much better from 1950 onward, but his surrounding cast is a bit stale. The movie drags and really only has two memorable moments before the credits start rolling - "I could have been a contender, I could have been somebody" and the fight with mob boss Johnny Friendly (Lee Cobb) on the docks at the end of the flick. Everything in between moves slowly and predictably. Grade: B-

1973 - The Sting

Lyndsay: Finnnallllyyyyy, a good one! This movie was awesome. It had everything- good acting, a good plot, good plot transitions, and an unexpected ending. Paul Newman and Robert Redford play the leads, and are con-artists going after the "big score." They were crafty, dramatic, funny, and most importantly... just a little bit sexy ;). Only con was that it dragged a bit in the middle, but this also could have been because we watched it the Monday after red, white, and blue jello shots and one of us (hint, hint, not me) participated in a horrible new activity called "Icing." Point being, rent this one... and you get Marvin Hamlisch as a bonus! Grade: A-

Jon: Robert Redford and Paul Newman interacting together in any capacity is pretty awesome. In this flick, which is rife with comedy and good ragtime music, you get two of the all-time greats in their prime, scheming to steal from just about anyone who has any money. It's hard to believe this was rated PG, considering some of the language used and the extensive violence, but I will let my kids watch this right after birth. It depicts depression-era Chicago the way I've always imagined the time period - full of a broad spectrum of hooligans, and far from the awful representation in Public Enemies (that movie was really disappointing, by the way). It's very entertaining from beginning to end, but the only elements that ruin for me are Charles Durning (always the same character in every movie) and the far-fetched scheme. To keep a large group of con men silent while they create a fake off-track betting parlor could just never happen, but I guess you need to suspend your disbelief and just enjoy this great movie. Grade: B

1929 - The Broadway Melody of 1929

Lyndsay- Ohhh lord, this movie was terrible. Since it was 1929 I'll cut it some slack on the technical aspects- sound, film quality, scene transitions- but the plot was even worse. I truly don't understand how anyone would have found it entertaining. Not only was the plot terribly formed so that it's message and resolution were still unclear as the end credits were rolling, but the acting was just as bad. There would be part of a scene where it was good, somewhat realistic, and then 30 seconds later a "oh tell me it ain't so" and dramatic hair flip moment. What I found worst of all was the dancing. I was actually somewhat excited to see this one because I love dancing and dance movies and thought it might at least be entertaining on that front. Well, I was wrong. Anyone see Troop Beverly Hills? Remember "The Freddy"? Yeah, it was just like that. Maybe this is what people really danced like back then, and if so I am 100% glad I live in the So You Think You Can Dance era. Grade: F

PS- If you haven't seen Troop Beverly Hills, you have to drop everything and rent it... or borrow it from me... or just buy it. And yes, I realize this statement may compromise people's trust in my ability to review movies.

Jon: Agreed, this movie totally sucked ball sack. The story was a hugely exaggerated fairy tale of the Mahoney sisters, Hank and Queenie, who come from the middle of nowhere (Peoria, IL) to New York only to be instantly cast in a major Broadway production. Their fate is the polar opposite of Joe Buck in Midnight Cowboy, and their characters are far less interesting. There's a little love triangle going on between Hank, Queenie, and Eddie Kearns - an established Broadway actor - but it is all so poorly acted that I would have rather been depressed while watching Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman struggle through a New York winter. The singing and dancing were also equally awful, make for a real shitbag of a movie. Since this was the first film to win Best Picture, the standards may have been a bit lower considering there were only a handful of movies made between 1928 - 1929. However, that's not anyone's fault who is below the age of 80, so we don't need to be entertained by the pile of garbage. Grade: F

1931 - Cimarron

Lyndsay: What this movie can boast is the worst hairdo I have ever, and I mean EVER seen. It even beats Javier Bardem's character in No Country for Old Men (2007 winner- post to come!). Yancey Cravat, the love to hate 'em main character of the movie is sporting the "side part sweep and curl" as I'm going to call it. Luckily the hair was so distracting that at times I forgot how much I hated him and didn't slap Jon in retaliation for how pig-headed and disrespectful men were back then. Which brings me around to my thoughts of the movie as a whole- my hate for this character, in my mind, is a good thing. Considering this was 1931 and the technology is appallingly bad (it was a struggle to see and hear anything going on), I was surprisingly into this movie. I got into the story and even laughed at some of the jokes that were made. The movie makes an attempt at liberalism, showing the struggle for equality for blacks, Native Americans, and women- but also manages to land each of those characters directly into their respective stereotype. Although the acting left a lot to be desired (as Jon I'm sure will describe in more detail), it probably did give a marginally accurate glimpse into frontier life to a 21st century city girl- and boy am I glad to be one. Grade: C+.

Jon: I don't use a typewriter to compose documents, and I don't use oil lamps to light my house at night, so I am not ashamed to say that this movie did not entertain me due to its technological short-comings. I'm not looking forward to any of the movies before the 1950s for exactly this reason. The sound is atrociously bad to the point where you can barely understand any of the dialogue. The acting may have been adequate at the time, but I will take it out of context and state that none of these characters were realistic for the time period portrayed in the movie, or any time period, for that matter. Yancy Cravat's character is that of a pioneer in the 19th century who sets out to tame the wilderness in Oklahoma with his wife and children, but he's the kind of guy who craves chaos and soon rambles on and abandons his family. This is a pretty dishonorable trait, yet his wife clings to his memory and cherishes him when he periodically returns without notice and then disappears again. His character is over the top and his manner of speaking is excessively deliberate, which is what ruins old movies for me. People didn't act like people, they were not believable - they continued the Vaudevillian traditions of the early 20th century. This may have been the best Hollywood had to offer at the time, but I'm not about to start cherishing old relics for the sake of historical value. This movie does not entertain. Grade: F

1981 - Chariots of Fire

Lyndsay: Ohhhhh where do I begin. Well, I guess I begin by saying we didn't actually finish this movie. I had such high expectations for it because people talk it up all of the time and the duhn duhn duhn music is everywhere, but, much like every "most hilarious movie of the year," it failed to live up to the hype. How boring. Everyone likes the idea of an underdog who triumphs, but the drama should have stayed in the 1924 newspapers when the characters were, in real life, competing for spots in the Olympic games. Otherwise, I think there is probably a similar story, if not 5, for every games.... we've all seen the UPS commercials where the employee is a struggling Olympic athlete.. Best thing about this movie was the original score. Grade: D.

Jon: In Al Pacino voice from Scent of a Woman - "What a crock of shiiittttt!!!" I seriously cannot waste any more time typing words related to this terrible movie. Grade: F-

1992 - Unforgiven

Lyndsay: Well, every ounce of me always wants to love Clint Eastwood because he is such an icon, but personally I just do not think he is a good actor. I think what others see as gruff manliness and stoicism is just a lack of personality because it is so flat and boring and never changes, no matter what the movie. On top of that, I also did not think Gene Hackman deserved the praise he received for this movie. Although yes, by the end I hated his character as much as I was supposed to, in no way do I see Western-badass in him. If the movie was set in modern day he would have acted it exactly the same- in addition his wardrobe was too modern and when the camera was on just him I forgot this was set in the 1890's. Aside from the acting, I thought the story line was interesting- definitely a new take on Western as it was all about the psychology of the time. At the end, I looked it up to see if it was based on a novel, because all signs pointed to a really fabulous book and a not so fabulous movie. Grade: C.


Jon: I have to whole-heartedly disagree with Lyndsay on this one. Unforgiven is a true psychological masterpiece and possibly the best western ever made. It might be one of the only movies that realistically portrays the mind of a contract killer. Most Hollywood ventures portray a serial killer as someone who functions like a robot, but that is not always the case as there is remorse and guilt among killers. As William Munny (Eastwood) and Ned Logan (Freeman) travel up to Wyoming, you watch Munny transform from an inadequate farmer and father to a cold killer who acts like he doesn't have a family at all. Whiskey certainly helped Munny, but his character transformation is so extreme that you wouldn't recognize him if you had a split-frame of his silhouette at the beginning and the end of the film. The western landscapes add the majestic cinematography that I enjoy, but I think the best part is the fundamental message that contract killers are not always the people you expect, they might be people with families who need the money and also need to be drunk to complete the job. The climax scene at the end of the movie between Eastwood and Hackman is pretty extreme and pretty awesome, with Hackman fulfilling his own prophecy by drawing his gun first. However, like any Eastwood movie, there are MAJOR problems with editing and attention to detail. His rain scenes look ridiculous - it is obvious that water is being blown on a set. His child actors, as always, are terrible (see Mystic River, Gran Torino, and every other movie he has made with child actors). Eastwood is not a good director, never has been, never will be, but he is an unbelievable storyteller. Even with these flaws, it's still a great movie. Grade: A-

1994 - Forrest Gump

Lyndsay: It really doesn't get any better than Forrest Gump. It's not just a story of a man's life- it's essentially the American story for the second half of the 20th century all set to a fantastic American soundtrack. The thing I like most about this movie is how all of the pieces come together- the story rolls along so smoothly that you are immersed in every frame and never lose site of the point, which, in my opinion, is summed up by the bumper sticker man: "shit happens." As MY momma always said, it isn't what happens to you in your life, but how you handle it that shows true character. Grade: A+

Jon: In my opinion, this is one of the top 5 films of all time, and it is by far the most complete film ever made. There's war, love, death, family, rock and roll, comedy, and just about every aspect of life that a person needs to experience before taking a dirt nap. The entire world thought Tom Hanks was incredible, and he was. He embodies the rare American ideal that if you work methodically, follow the rules, and be kind to others, you will be successful, regardless of your mental capacity. Although the plot is far-fetched, a lot of people could learn a few things from the simpleton who says "stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump's formula works. Hanks is so good that he overshadows the fact that Gary Sinise was outstanding as Lt. Dan. There were also great performances from Sally Field, Robin Wright, and Mykelti Williamson. It's extremely difficult to get any better than this movie, and only few like this are made in a lifetime. It must hold the record for most quotes that are used in everyday language, although it's pretty difficult to measure something like that. I've seen it about 500 times and can recite every word (and sound). Grade: A+