The Grapes of Wrath

1940.
#21 / #23
Winner of 2 Academy Awards

The Joads lose their Oklahoma farm during the Great Depression and make the arduous worker to California to become migrant farm workers.

Eddie: This is one of the bleakest movies on the list. It's black and white cinematography has more charm and sunshine than the story or any of its characters, and that's barely any sunshine to begin with. Henry Fonda does a good job playing Henry Fonda, looking like a hurt puppy while staring past the camera. The real gem is Jane Darwell, who plays Ma Joad. Her character holds the family together, and her performance holds the film together.

One thing I took away from the movie is a sense of perspective. If this is an accurate depiction of the Great Depression, which I'm sure it is, then the so-called Great Recession is nothing more than a rainy day in June compared to the decade-long hard times of the 1930s. I mean, I've faced unemployment, but I've never had to bury my grandfather on the side of the highway.

Sarah: This, like NETWORK, is a film that is just as relevant today as it ever was. Sure, things are not nearly what they were in the 30's, but how can someone watch this film and then say that unions are bad?

This film is a showcase of masterful performances all across the board (Ma Joad was my favorite) so if you just focus on that, maybe you can watch this movie without it sucking away all of your energy and hope.

Why You Should See It: Ma Joad packs up her mementos, choosing which to keep and which to leave behind. She says so much in this moment without any dialogue.

Dances with Wolves

1990.

#75 / Unlisted

Winner of 7 Academy Awards

Lieutenant John J. Dunbar (Kevin Costner), stationed in the Colorado frontier, begins to integrate himself with a Sioux tribe that lives nearby. Taking the name "Dances with Wolves," Dunbar helps defend the tribe against Pawnee and U.S. Army enemies.

Eddie: Just saw this movie for the first time last night, exactly the way a frontier epic should be viewed - on the big screen. I knew almost nothing about the movie, except for its similarities to AVATAR (which I hated). Very quickly, I jumped on board. I thought that the story made smart choices and developed a tenderness that created huge sympathy for the main character, Lieutenant Dunbar. The movie takes place largely through his eyes and in his head, but I never felt trapped or bored. It was an exciting journey to follow a lifelong renegade as he finally found a home.

A few other observations: Who knew that the First Lady (Mary McDonnell) from INDEPENDENCE DAY was so hot?! The performances are solid, all the way around, including the Sioux actors. Major credit belongs to Kevin Costner, who tackled such a colossal movie on a small budget with animals and kids and locations and two languages for his directorial debut! It almost begs the question, "K-Cost, why haven't you directed anything good since then?"

Sarah: I love how patient this movie is. As Kevin Costner slowly befriends the Sioux people, the audience does, too. It's interesting that John Dunbar does not really seem to come alive until he is accepted by the Sioux and becomes Dances With Wolves. I love that Dunbar had his own hero's journey within the larger narrative of the tribe. Very smart storytelling.

What makes this movie, however, is the dynamic characters and their relationships. Kicking Bird (Graham Greene), Stands With A Fist, Wind In His Hair (Rodney A. Grant), Smiles A Lot (Nathan Lee Chasing His Horse), and even Two Socks are all completely lovable and engaging. And how the hell did Costner get all those buffalo shots? Impressive!

Why You Should See It: Tatonka hunt!

Bridge on the River Kwai

1957.

#13 / #36

Winner of 7 Academy Awards

Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) urges his men, British prisoners of war, to help the Japanese build a bridge across the Kwai. Commander "Shears" (William Holden) escapes from the prison camp, but then leads a British squad back to the camp to blow up the completed bridge.

Eddie: I loved this movie. I'm not sure if it belongs on the AFI list, since the director and most of the cast are British, but I really enjoyed all two hours and forty minutes of it. This David Lean epic surpasses the one that follows, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. I enjoyed BRIDGE's subtle theme of anti-imperialism (specifically, anti-British-imperialism). Obi-Wan portrays Colonel Nicholson with such tragic pathos that I found myself rooting for him, even though his outdated point of view is worthy of dismissiveness. The deliberate pace of the story provides balance throughout the movie. The jungle lends a lush backdrop for BRIDGE.

And on a technical note, Jack Hildyard earns his Oscar with those day-for-night shots alone. I don't know why David Lean didn't bring him back for LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (which has terrible day-for-night shots).

Sarah: I'm not really sure what I was supposed to take away from this nearly three hour film. It was so start-and-stop. It was basically the same conversation for three hours. Here is it how it went.

Soldier #1: Let's build a bridge!

Soldier #2: Let's take it down!

Soldier #1: Let's build a new bridge!

Soldier #2: Wait. For real? I thought we were taking it down.

Soldier #1: No, we're really building it now.

Soldier #2: Ok.

Soldier #1: Ohhh! Let's build a tiny bridge, too.

What I was really unclear about was what motivated the characters' actions. I'm not entirely sure why Colonel Nicholson was so excited about building the bridge, and I'm equally dissatisfied with Shears' reasons for returning to the camp. The most sympathetic character, Lieutenant Joyce (Geoffrey Horne) does not even show up until the film is ending. I was completely underwhelmed with the story. This bridge takes you straight to sleeptown.

But I will agree with Eddie that the cinematography is beyond impressive. The patience and work it must have taken to film those long tracking shots through the jungle. Real jungle with bugs and bats and humidity. I can't even imagine braving those shooting obstacles, and that is certainly worth admiring.

Why You Should See It: There are a few shots in the movie that are stupendous because of the effort required to shoot them. We're talking about any shot with bats in it and, of course, the climactic train shot.

Raging Bull

1980.

#24 / #4

Winner of 2 Academy Awards

Jake LaMotta (Robert De Niro) works his way toward the welterweight title, while leading his life down a self-destructive path.

Eddie: I had never seen this movie before, and I think it stands out as Martin Scorcese's best. If I were teaching a class on the New Hollywood directors, then I would probably show this movie on the first day. It's such a departure from a typical American film, yet it manages to tell a wholly American story. What is RAGING BULL about? I asked the same question about SPARTACUS, but where SPARTACUS fails to deliver on its epic promises, RAGING BULL never becomes self-indulgent. Whenever the scope of the movie starts to slip out of control, Scorcese and De Niro bring it back. It is - from start to finish - a movie about Jake LaMotta. There's no confusion there.

De Niro's performance is damn near perfect. His ferocity is intimidating. While watching RAGING BULL, I couldn't help think of his performance in GODFATHER II. Taken together, the two flicks show De Niro's expansive range. To go from playing the quiet, methodical Vito Corleone to the temperamental, explosive Jake LaMotta; De Niro shows that he is a baller of the highest order!

Sarah: Eddie, I hope RAGING BULL is not an American story. A story about a guy who continues to be an asshole until he drives his family away, to live as a lonely asshole. Yes, American. I know you may not be able to tell by my subtle nuanced writing style, but story-wise, this was not my movie. But I can appreciate the picture's strengths. The performances are strong and I think Scorcese's camera moves are engaging and interesting. And even though I don't find the story fulfilling, I admire it's self-awareness. Jake LaMotta is not supposed to seek redemption. That thought would never occur to him. His brutality is his success and his failure.

This is where the AFI list gets tricky. What should be on the list? Shouldn't the list not only show a diversity of film-makers but also diversity in the American experience? The story of brute power and its failing already is a common theme on the list. How many boxers do we need on the list?

Why You Should See It: The final scene, where an old, fat Jake rehearses the "Contender speech" from ON THE WATERFRONT. It's poignant and touching, despite the ice cold reading of the lines.

The General

1926.
Unranked / #18

Johnny Gray (Buster Keaton) pursues Union spies who have stolen his train and kidnapped his lady.

Eddie: I've never been a huge Buster Keaton fan, having always been partial to Charlie Chaplin. However, I thoroughly enjoyed THE GENERAL (and Keaton's performance, in particular) despite the flick's numerous flaws.

1. It seems odd to make a comedy about the Civil War, specifically about the Confederacy. There's one sequence where Johnny's life is unwittingly spared because he keeps dodging bullets without realizing it. But at the same time, the soldiers around him are getting shot. It feels like a comedy gag, but it ends up just making you feel terrible.
2. The middle of the movie feels very long. Low-speed train chases aren't as fast and furious as you might expect.

Also, I don't think that THE GENERAL is necessarily Keaton's best film. I've seen only one other - STEAMBOAT BILL, JR. - and I have to admit that I preferred that one. All that being said, I really did enjoy THE GENERAL. Keaton is stoic and hilarious, and his stunt-work is top-notch.

Sarah: Give me any story set in the antebellum South, and you have my attention. This film was fun and charming. Keaton's deadpan is hilarious, and he does quite a number of impressive stunts. My one big problem with the film was the love story.

Keaton and his lady break up when he fails to enlist for the confederacy. I felt bad for Keaton at first, but soon, I felt bad for his lady. He was constantly rough with her, but not in a comic way, in a violent way. Find a new beau, girl! I was not rooting for either of them.

I have not seen enough Keaton to know if this is his quintessential film. Does it deserve it's place on the list? Probably not, but it'll keep you amused.

Why You Should See It: At the climactic point in the movie, a train tries to cross a burning bridge, only to fall into the river below. We watched it twice.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

1975.
#20 / #33
Winner of 5 Academy Awards.

Randle McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) checks into a mental hospital after refusing to work at a prison camp. His rebelliousness draws the ire of Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher).

Eddie: How many times can I extol Jack Nicholson? There are only so many ways I can say it, but I'll try once more. Jack is da bomb. His intensity dominates the movie. There's one shot in the movie where he's looking out the window, and it holds on the close-up until his glare turns into that devilish smile. It's a very long take, but it's worth every second, as is the movie as a whole.

I had thought, before watching the movie, that ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST ended with McMurphy's lobotomy. McMurphy does, in fact, get one, but that's by no means the ending. What happens after the operation is powerful and touching. Will Sampson (who plays Chief) navigates that last scene heroically, portraying exactly how much McMurphy had meant to him.

Sarah: I felt full of anxiety the whole time I watched this film. The camera movement and the actors' performances all work together to build growing tension. I think this film, like Kesey's novel (that's right, I read it. I have a degree in literature) does a great job finding lightness amid the heavy subject matter. Or maybe it does a great job finding drama amid the sometimes comical hysteria. That's the story's brilliance. The more you try and label who is crazy and who is not, the further you will get from the answer.This is the first film we've watched in a while that we both agree deserves it's place on the list.

Side note: Eddie and I have visited the hospital where this was filmed, and the whole place gives off a gloomy heavy feeling. I can't imagine what it was like to actually be inside.

Why You Should See It: When Nurse Ratched won't allow the patients to watch a baseball game, McMurphy gets them all to pretend to watch a game on the screen. It's Nicholson hijinks at its best.

Spartacus

1960.
Unlisted / #81
Winner of 4 Academy Awards.

Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) leads a slave revolt against Rome.

Eddie: I didn't realize until I started watching this movie that SPARTACUS is a Stanley Kubrick film. While it's stylistically more of a departure for Kubrick, it's got a lot of the elements that I despise about his movies. À la 2001, why does Kubrick insist on lingering so long on one shot? Rome could've been sacked and rebuilt in the time it takes those legions to assemble before they attack the slave army. And vis-à-vis (that's right. I said it) nearly every Kubrick film, what the hell was this movie about? Was it about Spartacus? Was it about Rome? Was it a love story? I have no idea.

Douglas is all right, but he seems to rely pretty heavily on that grin to get him through scenes. Tony Curtis is terribly miscast. Even the dependable Laurence Olivier seems uneven throughout the film. My only concession is that Kubrick deserves major props for directing this epic film (cast of 10,000) at such a young age (33). In addition to directing, Kubrick served as the director of photography after he fired Russell Metty (who still managed to win the Oscar for Best Color Cinematography).

Sarah: The things Eddie hates about this movie are the things I like about it. I like that Kubrick takes his time to develop multi-layered films. His stories don't tell you their thesis, instead he leaves the audience to draw their own conclusions. He is subtle, which I find refreshing. Apparently I'm alone here because everyone else loves BLACK SWAN (aka "Mirror mirror on the wall, whose the craziest one of all?").

I really admire Kubrick, and the choreography of this mega-cast shows what a powerful director he is. But even my love for Kubrick doesn't make me think this is an AFI movie. While I found the subject matter fascinating, this film seems weak compared to the others we have viewed. It's a relic sitting on the list as a tribute to old epic films. It doesn't hold up. It's too costumed and melodramatic. Even if you could get past these issues to enjoy the emotional ride of the film, sooner or later Tony Curtis will enter. As soon as he says something in his thick, New York accent, you will again be taken out of the movie.

I'm all for more Kubrick on the list, but what about FULL METAL JACKET or THE SHINING? This is simply too much of a commercial drama to showcase Kubrick's talents. And we all know what happens when we try and make Kubrick commercial. We get A.I.

Why You Should See It: The love story between Spartacus and Varinia (Jean Simmons) is kind of adorable.