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-