Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) *Gillian Pick*

As I have often said, I did not have much of an imagination as a child. If my G.I. Joe was missing an arm I could not pretend that his arm was there. Instead he had lost it in battle somehow (that is if I played with him at all). When I wanted to be one of my heroes, whether it be Dick Tracey or Indiana Jones, I couldn't get past the fact that my shirt had a picture on it and their shirts did not. I would go so far as to turn my shirt inside out so that I could use my makeshift whip without worrying about the Harley riding duck on my shirt. Sadly my imagination hasn't gotten better, but at least my love for Indiana Jones has not diminished.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is the first installment in a series of great films. Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr. is an archaeologist who, thanks to his OSS training, is able to survive some hairy situations. Raiders of the Lost Ark takes place during WWII, and follows Indiana as he looks for the Ark of the Covenant, hoping to find it before the Nazis do.

It's important to note that none of the stories in the Indiana Jones series are very believable. The viewer is able to overlook this fact because the dialogue is super funny, the action is superb, naturally people want a story that shows someone triumph over Nazis to be true, and religious beliefs come into play because the object of interest is some sort of religious artifact. Rather than focus on making a movie soaked in realism, the movies do a perfect job of melting scientific logic with the religious to make a fun family favorite.

You know something is good if it gets spoofed by Weird Al. Check out this clip from the great 80's movie UHF.


If it hasn't been made perfectly clear, I love this movie! To be honest, The Last Crusade is my favorite movie in the series, but Raiders of the Lost Ark is still one of my favorite movies ever. It is a must see.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 4.8
Would I own it? Absolutely! I love Indiana Jones!
Would I recommend it? I'd be crazy not to.

North by Northwest (1959) *Gillian Pick*

What is it about spies that captures our imagination? Could it be the "Red Scare?" For those of you that don't know, the "Red Scare" was a period of Anti-Communism focused on Communists infiltrating our government. Back then, everyone was a potential spy, and it shows in the entertainment industry. I don't think it's simply a coincidence that the "Red Scare" was from 1947-1957, that Ian Flemming created James Bond in 1953, and North by Northwest was made in 1959. Whatever the real reason for our fascination with spies, North by Northwest addresses the issue, "What if you were mistaken for a spy?"

The synopsis, as told by Netflix, is "Cary Grant [stars as] an advertising executive who looks a little too much like someone else and is forced to go on the lam. Hitchcock's sure-handed comic drama pits Grant against a crop duster and lands him in a fight for his life on Mount Rushmore -- a true cliffhanger if ever there was one." I am sorry but everything about that sounds awesome. I love Hitchcock's work, Cary Grant is everything I want to be (He is dashing and has a great voice), and crop dusters daredevils disguised as farmers. Here is a trailer:



I must first express my disappointment that for being a spy movie there was no shoe phone like on Get Smart, but I suppose I have no choice but to live with it.


Really though, this movie was pretty good. Compared to some of the other garbage I've had to watch, this was a nice change. I don't know if I would say it belongs on AFI's list, but it definitely has more of a right to be on there then some of the other movies.

Quick tidbit: Like Hitchcock's other movies, he has a cameo in North by Northwest. Look for him missing a bus at the end of the opening credits.

The bottom line:
Rating: 4.0
Would I own it? Only after I buy Psycho and and Rear Window.
Would I recommend it? I certainly would.

Jaws (1975) *Gillian Pick*

Everyone has been hounding me to use my vacation time to catch up on all my blogs. Ok fine you jerks! Here is my next review.

One of the main reasons I started doing this list, besides wanting to occupy the TV so my former roommate couldn't watch anything, was to watch movies that I have always heard of, but never seen. Jaws was one of those movies. I don't know why I have never watched it until now, but I am glad I have finally seen it.

Jaws is about a shark with big jaws, and with his big jaws he terrorizes a town of people that are scared of his jaws. Jaws takes place on fictional Amity Island. At the beginning of the summer season, a shark attack threatens to destroy the town by keeping away "summer dollars." The town council wants to keep the attack a secret, despite pleadings from the local sheriff. When more attacks send the town in an uproar the sheriff, an oceanographer, and a shark hunter set out to destroy the blood-thirsty beast.

The most recognizable thing about this movie (even for those who haven't seen it) is the soundtrack. The main "shark" theme is an alternating pattern of E and F, and when Spielberg heard it for the first time he though Williams was joking. Later, however, he said that the movie would have only been half as successful without Williams' music. Here is the shark theme in all it's glory:



It seems to me that every scary movie was only scary for someone because they either watched it in a loud, dark theater, or because they were very young when they saw it. I must say that even though I saw this movie as a 24 year old, it scared me. I wasn't biting my nails by any means, but it was terrifying at some points.

Let me just go off on a tangent here, and say that it also seems that every scary movie ever made has to have a million sequels until the plot has become so bastardized that it is unrecognizable. While I have not seen the other Jaws movies, it has enough sequels that one could think that:



I really enjoyed this movie, and was surprised how good it was. I have watched so much crap I would have settled for a movie that was simply watchable, but Jaws pulled past the "watchable" stage and into full fledged "classic."

The bottom line:
Rating: 4.4
Would I own it? I could see it happening.
Would I recommend it? Do sharks have jaws?

West Side Story (1961) *Gillian Pick*

Oh man it has been a long time! I apologize to all of you for not writing a review in a while but October was here, and I could only watch scary movies. I call it "Fright-tober" and it's awesome. Anyway, on with AFI's list.

It is crucial to be politically correct in this day and age. Because of this P.C. push, there are many topics that are now taboo to talk about. One such topic, that has been in the news a lot lately, is homosexuality. It has become taboo to call something "gay" no matter how true it may be. At the risk of not being politically correct I just have to say, "West Side Story is gay!"

West Side Story is based on a little play by Bill Shakespeare called Romeo and Juliet. Just in case you've been living under a rock your whole life, or you're not a big Leo fan I will explain the plot.



Essentially there's two rich families that are always fighting. Romeo and Juliet are from opposing families, but fall in love anyway. There's lots of fighting, some member of the feline royal family dies (Tybalt the "King of Cats"), and Romeo is banished. In order to be together, Juliet fakes her death but Romeo doesn't hear about it and offs himself. As far as tragedies go, it's quite good. West Side Story is exactly the same, except for some crucial points:

1. Instead of rich families they are street gangs that dance
2. Instead of fighting, there's lots of dancing
3. Instead of being sucked into a believable love story, the audience can't help but feel that Tony (Romeo) is gay because of all the dancing he does.
4. Did I mention there's dancing?

I will say that this film is visually stunning with the colors that are used, and the dance scenes are very well put together, but the main problem with this movie is the singing. No amount of dance fighting can save it either.



The songs don't flow very well, and it gives the impression that they were written the night before. Not to mention the kids they got to sing are not much better then a local high school choir. I feel bad for not liking a movie that a good friend of mine likes enough to own, but it's the way I feel. I guess this means that I would never survive on the hard streets of Manhattan like the Jets and the Sharks.

The bottom line:
Rating: 3.3
Would I own it? Not even if I was threatened with a plague on my house (Shakespeare joke)
Would I recommend it? I would to a band of "merry" men

Taxi Driver (1976)

As I have said many times before I am a bus driver. Because of this job I have met many interesting people and learned many interesting things. I have learned, for example, that Razor Scooters are no longer considered cool. You know what Razor Scooters are don't you? They are those awesome aluminum scooters that came out in the late 90's that a bunch of kids got hurt on. Just look how awesome they are:



When I was in school everyone wanted one, but I never got one. I did have a Hot Wax Scooter though. In some ways superior to Razor, but pain is much more likely. One morning I was transporting a whole bus full of kids and I overheard a conversation that went something like this:

"Oh my gosh Timmy is so cute!"
"You know he rides a scooter to school?"
"Well he lives pretty far away."
"I would rather walk than ride a scooter to school."
"I guess you're right. Wow a scooter? He should tell his parents to buy him a bike or something."
"Seriously. What a dork."

I felt sorry for Timmy, but to save myself from the same fate as his I quickly hid my Razor logo tattoo, and continued to drive despite all of my tears. Like I said before, I also meet interesting people on the bus. On the very same day that my scooter dreams were crushed I had lady pick her nose on my bus. It wasn't a standard nose pick either. She did a "double nostril search." She shoved a finger into each nostril and proceeded her excavation. That doesn't seem very effective in my opinion, but who am I to judge? With all of the weirdos that I meet on the bus, they don't hold a candle to the freaks in NYC that ride in taxis.

Taxi Driver is about, you guessed it, a taxi driver in New York. Robert De Niro plays Vietnam Vet Travis Brickle. It becomes extremely obvious in the first few minutes of the film that Travis is crazy. For example, he begins to stalk a girl that he sees driving one day. It goes without saying that it doesn't turn out well. The thing that sets him apart from the other cab drivers in NYC is that he is willing to go to the sleaziest places, and pick up anyone. Because of this attitude, he meets a child hooker (played by Jodie Foster) and decides that he needs to help her escape that life. Arming himself with a whole arsenal of weapons he begins to make his plan.

A very interesting fact is that John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate Reagan because of this movie. He became obsessed with Jodie Foster, and decided to impress her by killing Reagan. Thanks to our legal system he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He mimicked Taxi Driver, including De Niro's mohawk in the film. The defense showed the movie during the trial, and apparently that was all the jury needed to see.

What would happen had John never seen this movie? American Dad explores that possibility. Stan goes back in time, and because of his actions Scorsese never makes Taxi Driver. As a result John Hinckley Jr. never saw Jodie Foster, never became obsessed with her, which resulted in him never trying to assassinate Ronald Reagan. This dented Reagan's popularity, forcing him to lose the election, and Walter Mondale surrenders the country to the Soviet Union just 47 days into his presidency. Stan then goes back in time to make the movie himself:



I recommend watching the whole episode of American Dad. It is called "The Best Christmas Story Never Told" and is the ninth episode from the second season. You can see it on Netflix.

Let me just say that I hated this movie. It was boring, sometimes confusing, and was controversial just for the sake of being controversial. I have decided that I am not impressed with Martin Scorsese. I love his movie The Departed, but everything else he has done is either really dumb, really unstructured, or just lacks something crucial.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 2.9
Would I own it? No way!
Would I recommend it? If you are a Jodie Foster fan maybe.

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

You all may have noticed that I have not written a review in a while. That is because my brain has been melted. In order to finish by the six month deadline I was watching two movies a day. On top of the fact that I had no time to write reviews, this blistering pace took way too much effort. After a bunch of crappy movies in a row I decided that I don't care about any of you more than I care about my IQ, so I decided to stop watching so many movies. This will allow me to actually get something productive done. If this makes you upset, deal with it. I don't give a hoot.

Someone once said, "War is hell." Well they've never been to fat camp. Fortunately for me, I haven't been to war or fat camp. That doesn't mean, however, that I am unfamiliar with the aftermath. When you give a bunch of men guns and say, "Here. Get good at shooting this." somebody is bound to get hurt. The military is not all fun and games like Top Gun would have us believe.



Eventually soldiers come home and the injuries they received, whether it be physical or psychological, is a topic of interest for everyone and can make coming home very difficult. The Best Years of Our Lives follows three soldiers, and their experiences returning home after WWII.

The most impressive (and somewhat shocking) thing about this movie was the character Homer (played by Harold Russell). Homer is a Navy man that lost both of his hands in the war. True to technology back then, Homer has two hooks instead of hands. Unlike Chubbs, his hooks don't make his forearm unnaturally long.

With amazing dexterity Russell controls these hooks to really sell his part as Homer. I thought to myself, "He must have been wearing those hooks for weeks before this movie to practice." I later found out that Harold is a real life veteran, and really did lose his hands in WWII. This made his performance not only real, but powerful. After all, it's hard to play a part poorly when it was virtually written just for you.

This was a very good movie. It was a little slow at times, but not enough to ruin the movie. By the end I felt a close connection with the characters, and really wanted to see them be happy. Much like my feelings towards Pam and Jim on The Office. Not the most amazing movie I have seen, but I liked it.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 3.7
Would I own it? It lacked a certain wow factor.
Would I recommend it? Yeah Homer was awesome.

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) *Gillian Pick*

What is it about wizards, magic, and swords that attract nerds? Like a moth to a flame they attach themselves to anything magical or medievel, even going so far as to fight each other with foam swords.



This video doesn't seem so weird because it looks like a bunch of kids having fun in their backyard. That's somewhat normal until you find out that the person throwing "lightning bolts" is actually a 30 year old man. Now I'm not saying that only nerds like magical tales, and I'm not saying that it's overly strange that men play such games, I'm just observing that geeky people magnetize to fantasy stories a little more than others. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is the long awaited holy grail of fantasy movies, and it turned us all into nerds.

The Fellowship of the Ring is the first movie in the Lord of the Rings saga, and is an epic beginning to an epic journey. Before I begin this synopsis let me say that I will probably say something that is incorrect, but I don't really care. In a nutshell there is an evil dude (I guess he's a monster but I don't know) named Lord Sauron. He has made a ring that is pure evil, and the source of his power. It gets lost and is found by a hobbit (which is just a little person) named Bilbo. At the urging of a wizard named Gandalf, Frodo (Bilbo's nephew) sets out to destroy the ring. The catch is it must be destroyed where it was made. So with the help of a few hobbits, an elf, a couple of humans, a wizard, and a dwarf Frodo starts on his journey.



The major problem for the makers of this movie was what to leave out from the books. Someone is bound to be disappointed, and there's always a debate about whether the movie or the book was better. In my opinion, they did a great job picking what to leave out. For example, they completely cut out Tom Bombadil. That whole section of the book (which to me felt like 100 pages) has no real influence on the plot as a whole. All through high school I had to listen to nerds gripe about this omission. Who really cares? Let me get something off my chest: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR LORD OF THE RINGS ANALYSIS!!! I don't care about Gandalf the Gray vs. Gandalf the White. I don't care about the origin of Orcs. All I care about is that I enjoy watching these movies.

While my favorite movie the trilogy is The Return of the King, I still love The Fellowship of the Ring. The visuals are amazing, the story is epic, the use of perspective to make the hobbits look small are mind blowing, and the sets and costumes are incredible. The movies are really long, but that's alright by me. As if they weren't long enough, they released extended versions of these movies that made them even longer. For those of you that think this is too long, here is a short version just for you:



The Bottom Line:
Rating: 4.7
Would I own it? I already do.
Would I recommend it? If I ever find anyone that hasn't seen it yet.