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.

Intolerance (1916)

One thing I have often thought to myself is, "If they can put music on silent movies why couldn't they just put dialogue on the music track and make it a 'talkie?'" Technology moves kind of slowly I guess. So far all of the silent movies on AFI's list have been entertaining. There's something timeless about an accident-prone man. I think I've been pretty patient with this whole ordeal, but Intolerance has crossed the line and now I'm mad.

Intolerance is a silent movie about, you guessed it, intolerance. It follows four plots about intolerance, and its effects, throughout history. It shows the fall of Babylon, the crucifixion of Christ, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre during the French Renaissance, and conflicts between ruthless capitalists in Modern America (or at least modern when this movie came out).

Sounds boring doesn't it? You have no idea. It's 3 hours long! Not only that but the music sounded like something straight from Warcraft. The video below is a pretty good representation of what Intolerance is like. Warning! The clip is over 7 minutes long so you may not want to watch all of it, but at least watch a couple minutes worth.



Let me just come out and say I HATED THIS MOVIE!!! It was so boring, so stupid, and even a little bit confusing. A lot of times the older movies on AFI's list were popular and relevant when they came out and time has buried that meaning. Well newsflash: Intolerance wasn't even popular when it came out! So you're going to stand there and tell me that Intolerance is a good movie when even the people that it was targeted to hated it? Well I'm not buyin' it.

In 1989 the Library of Congress declared it "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." So a bunch of pencil pushers in Washington are the reason I had to watch this movie? One of the reasons that Intolerance is considered significant is it was unheard of at that time to blend together different plots. While that is a tactic used very often today, it did not work in a silent movie. It just made the thing confusing. Just because somebody did something before everyone else doesn't mean it was any good. If a technique doesn't work then it doesn't work! I'm beginning to babble, so I should probably end this review. Let me just end by saying that I would give this movie a rating of 0.0 but no movie really deserves a rating that low...except for Crank 2: High Voltage.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 1.7
Would I own it? If it was given to me as a present I would burn down the house of the person that gave it to me.
Would I recommend it? NNNNOOOOOO!!!!!!

Rear Window (1954) *Gillian Pick*

Watching people when they don't know they're being watched is really fun. That sounds really creepy, especially coming from me because I'm a bus driver, but it's true. Go out and "people watch" for an afternoon and you'll not only be surprised by what you learn about people, but you will be surprised how much fun it is. Of course I imagine that it would lose the fun factor if I had nothing better to do than "people watch." Rear Window tells of a man in such a predicament.

L.B. Jefferies is an action photographer, played by Jimmy Stewart, that has suffered a terrible accident on the job. As a result he is confined to a wheelchair while his broken leg heals. In the summer heat he has an open view to all of his neighbors' personal lives because no one wants to have the windows closed in 100 degree weather. When Jefferies becomes convinced that one neighbor has committed murder he will stop at nothing to prove it.

Does this plot sound familiar to you? Well that's because Hollywood resurrected this story when they made the movie Disturbia.



Let me just come right out and say that I love both versions. Warning! Disturbia is targeted to the current generation so don't go watching it expecting a shot for shot remake. The differences, however, is what makes them both so good. If you are old don't think that you won't enjoy it.

Rear Window, along with the great Jimmy Stewart, stars Grace Kelly. When Mika came out with the song Grace Kelly I had no idea who she was.



I said to my brother, "Who is Grace Kelly?" to which he responded, "What are you an idiot? He's the guy on Singin' in the Rain." Being ignorant on the subject I believed him until I later found out that Gene Kelly was in Singin' in the Rain, and Grace Kelly was Princess consort of Monaco. Who's the idiot now?

As I said earlier, I love this movie. Alfred Hitchcock is amazing in my opinion. All though some of the situations in Rear Window wouldn't happen anymore, the story is still relevant today. Disturbia is proof of that. I have seen this movie before, but had forgotten all of the particulars, so I was on the edge of my seat at times because I didn't remember what would happen next. True to his style, Hitchcock plays a cameo in this movie. Look for him in the apartment of the struggling pianist.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 4.3
Would I own it? I would really like to.
Would I recommend it? Do you really have to ask?

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) *Gillian Pick*

I was in the drama club in high school, and I can describe it in one word, "Ridiculous." On top of only doing stupid plays, we never actually prepared for them. Can you really blame us though? Who wants to put a lot of effort into a Christmas play written by a fellow classmate; or a play about a Frankenstein like monster that is kept alive by the blood of unwed mothers? The only thing that happened in our club that was of any cultural significance was we watched A Streetcar Named Desire. I'm glad that I was able to watch this movie again. There was a lot I missed the first time because I couldn't hear over all the sighs from the girls undressing Marlon Brando with their eyes.

Let me take a moment and talk about the sexiness of Marlon Brando. He is ripped in A Streetcar Named Desire, but has had problems with his weight all his life. For example, he showed up to the set of Apocalypse Now severely overweight. Just look at the comparison of sexy Brando and chubby Brando.



Like night and day! Unfortunately I'm more comparable to the chubby Brando than the sexy Brando.

A Streetcar Named Desire is about an aging Southern Belle, Blanche DuBois, who is forced to move in with her sister Stella and brother-in-law Stanley when she looses the plantation to creditors. It becomes very obvious that Blanche is crazy, and Stanley is controlling and abusive. As a matter of fact, the most famous scene from Streetcar is a by product of Stanley's abuse. Here is the musical version:



All in all this movie was ok, but just like many others on AFI's list it was a little boring. It just seemed to me like something that not many people could actually identify with. Maybe I'm just crazy like Blanche. It is an iconic movie despite how boring it was at times.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 3.8
Would I own it? Well Marlon is yummy.
Would I recommend it? Yeah. It should be seen once at least.

It Happened One Night (1934) *Gillian Pick*

Everyone has been on a road trip that felt like it would last forever. Don't try and tell me that you haven't because even a half hour drive can seem like an eternity to a little kid. Any trip can feel exponentially longer when you have a brat in your traveling party (child or adult) that will stop at nothing to make your life miserable.



It Happened One Night is about Ellie Andrews, the daughter of a rich man, that has runaway to elope with a fortune hunting pilot. Along the way she runs into unemployed newspaper man Peter Warne. Her lack of street smarts, her lack of money, and a $100,000 reward for the return of Ellie makes for a very upsetting, and dangerous, situation for Peter. That is, of course, until he decides that Ellie is not too bad to look at.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, "Clark Gable is UGLY!" Despite his toadiness, he gives a great performance as a crusty, fast-talking newsman. While this definitely was an old movie, and maybe a little slow in parts, it was fun to watch. Not as exciting as Harry and Lloyd's road trip in Dumb and Dumber, but not quite as boring as the road trip in Grapes of Wrath.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 4.0
Would I own it? Eh...maybe.
Would I recommend it? Yes. I know lots of people that would love this movie.

The Philadelphia Story (1940) *Gillian Pick*

Philadelphia is full of history. Along with being the birthplace of the amazing treat known as the Philly Cheesesteak it hosted the First and Second Continental Congress along with the Constitutional Convention. Check me out yo! I learned something in school. When a town has that much history the residents have a lot of pride in their fair city.



Also with an old town like Philly you get a lot of "Old Families" that have too much money for their own good. The Philadelphia Story centers on one such family.

Tracy Lord, a rich socialite, is getting remarried. Her insisting that it must be a private affair has got the paparazzi licking their chops. You know that TMZ is going to want a piece of the action.

Spy Magazine wants to do a story about the marriage, so with the help of Tracy's ex-husband, they sneak a reporter and his girlfriend photographer onto the guest list. What follows is a tempest of romances brewing and cooling the likes of which have never been seen...well I guess now the likes of it has been seen because it's in this movie.

This was a nice romantic comedy. It was a little confusing at times, mostly because I've never been rich so I couldn't identify with certain situations. The hardest part for me was understanding why something that had happened was bad manners. I guess I have no manners. Not a lot to say about it other than, "It was a cute movie."

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 3.8
Would I own it? I really like all of the actors, so it could happen.
Would I recommend it? I know a lot of girls that would like it.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

I love a good war story, especially a good WW II story. Most of my favorite movies of all time take place during WW II. Listed below are a few great movies (order meaning nothing).

1) The Band of Brothers (In my opinion the most brilliant portrayal of WW II)
2) Schindler's List
3) The Pianist
4) The Great Escape
5) The Pacific
6) Swing Kids
7) To Be or Not To Be
8) Saving Private Ryan
9) Inglorious Basterds (Thank you Adam for reminding me of this one)

The Bridge on the River Kwai is one of my father's favorite movies. Although I had never seen it growing up, I had been raised on the notion that it is a great movie. Man was I sorely disappointed.

First let me get something off my chest: I am sick and tired of movies being way longer than they need to be. I have watched so many movies lately that are 3 hours long, but nothing happens for the first 2. If you don't have enough material to make a full movie, please stop making movies.

The Bridge on the River Kwai takes place in a Japanese POW camp. A British colonel and his men are told to help build a bridge for the railroad. In an act that can only be described as treason, the British colonel demands a perfect bridge construction for the enemy. However an American Navy commander is determined to prevent that from happening.

From the stories I've heard, Japanese POW camps were a nightmare. Just look at what happened to John McCain.



This movie made the camp seem tame. I know what you're thinking right now, "Well duh, it's an old movie. They couldn't get away with being as graphic as Saving Private Ryan." You bring up a valid point, but the movie really made the camp seem like a holiday.

Another aspect of the movie that made me mad was the British colonel. This man is "by the book" and so when the head of the Japanese camp tries to make him work, he cites that it is against the Geneva Convention for an officer to be forced to work. Good for him, right? Well when it is no longer mandatory for him to work, he joins the project whole heartily and expects perfect effort from his men. I'm sorry but as a soldier he should be causing problems anywhere he can. In the Wikipedia article about this movie it says, "On a BBC Timewatch programme, a former prisoner at the camp states that it is unlikely that a man like the fictional Nicholson could have risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel; and if he had, he would have been "quietly eliminated" by the other prisoners." I know that people are only human, and it is very possible that an officer might act like that at one point. I also know that I should not base my dislike of the movie solely on that. Well there is more to it than that, but to prevent myself from spoiling the plot I cannot go into more detail about it.

All in all this movie was decent. Let me reiterate, however, that it was longer than it needed to be, somewhat boring, and very upsetting. Lucky for me there are more WW II movies than just this one.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 2.7
Would I own it? Only if it was in a box set with The Great Escape
Would I recommend it? To my father maybe.

Sound of Music (1965) *Gilllian Pick*

Europe is a beautiful continent. I spent some time there, and loved it. The lack of preservatives in the food, the hot and smelly public transit, the vast amounts of history. How could you not love it? Unfortunately with history comes historic atrocities. The Sound of Music is a scary movie about an evil family living in Austria during WW II.


Actually The Sound of Music is a happy musical by Roger and Hammerstein. It's the true story about Maria, a nun in training that is sent to be a nanny to the seven children of a stern widower. To prevent himself from remembering his dead wife, their father Captain Von Trapp has removed everything happy from his life. Maria's happy nature, and tendency to sing, quickly changes that situation.

I keep trying to deny the fact that I like musicals, but so far it isn't working. I really enjoyed this film. It isn't the best musical I have seen, but the location makes up for it. The one complaint I had while watching it is that it only has enough songs to make for half of a musical. Every song is repeated at least once which really made the movie feel dragged out. Still the music is fun enough to not care that much. I have fond memories of sitting in the back seat of my grandparents car, with the heater cranked up full blast even though it is 9o degrees outside, and listening to "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?" while my grandma swore about my grandpa's bad driving. Aah memories.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 4.4
Would I own it? I love Julie Andrews so yes.
Would I recommend it? Did I not just say I love Julie Andrews?

Annie Hall (1977)

Neurotic people are very funny. Larry David, the co-creator of Seinfeld has made a living off of his neurosis. George Costanza is the embodiment of Larry's neurotic behavior.

Whether it's wearing goggles to replace his "stolen" glasses, chasing down a stranger for not giving him a "thank you wave," or carrying a wallet the size of a baseball because he is convinced he will need his Irish money, George always has something funny happen to him. As funny as neurotic people are, sometimes they are very annoying. For example sometimes I just want to shout at George, "Knock it off!" Despite the annoying factor, I find Woody Allen, another big neurotic person, very entertaining.

Annie Hall is one of Woody Allen's first films. It chronicles Alvy Singer, a writer, and his relationship with a quirky aspiring singer Annie. The movie is shown from inside the mind of Alvy which means it isn't always in chronological order. It also means that he has conversations that didn't actually happen. Take his recollection of his school day for example:



I thought this movie was very funny. The movie's dialogue was very quick witted, and made for a fun hour and a half. I also enjoyed seeing Paul Simon play the part of a music producer.

The Bottom Line:
Rating: 4.2
Would I own it? I liked it enough to say I would.
Would I recommend it? Only to those who has a sense of humor.

King Kong (1933) *Gillian Pick*

I still have a lot of movies to watch, and not a lot of time. In order to alleviate some of the problems with finding these movies my good friend Gillian has loaned me 16 movies off of AFI's list. Each review that features a movie that she loaned me will have a label dubbing it as such. Thanks Gillian!

There are a lot of monsters in this world: King Kong, Godzilla, Joan Rivers. Each of them has their own domain that they terrorize until someone knocks them down a peg. Where there's a monster, there's some equally monstrous person that wants to make money on the monster's persona. Take the circus for example. That stupid ringleader just keeps making money off of the bearded lady. King Kong is no exception.

Filmmaker Carl Denham loves to make exciting movies about nature. He's like the Steve Zissou of New York. The problem with being a big star is that you always have to outdo yourself. Lucky for him he gets a tip about an island that has a terrible monster like the world has never seen. So with a lovely woman in tow, he heads to this island that time forgot.

Along with having a giant gorilla living on it, this island has a lot of dinosaurs. Apparently this one island wasn't affected by the meteor (or in my opinion the lack of Cheetos) that killed off the dinosaurs. Luckily Denham wouldn't come to such treacherous terrain without gas bombs.



I have a personal connection with this movie because when I was little I had a plastic King Kong doll. Somewhere along the line he got a hole right in the crotch region, but that made him more fun in the bath. I would fill his hollow body with water, and then poor it out of the hole. It looked like he was peeing. Man I had an awesome childhood.

This movie was pretty solid, especially considering how old it is. The acting is a little weak, and it's the special effects look a little fake, but not bad for it's time. All of the monsters are done with claymation, and although they look really good, their movements are not very fluid. It's no Nightmare Before Christmas, but it's tolerable.



The bottom line:
Rating: 3.9
Would I own it? Probably not, but I would own another King Kong doll. My bath times are boring now.
Would I recommend it? It probably will happen.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

Everyone has their own favorite Disney princess. If you don't believe me, ask someone. Whatever you do, however, don't tell them that their favorite princess is stupid. You are just asking for a war. Just for your own edification here is a list of my favorite princesses, in order from most to least favorite:

1) Giselle (Enchanted)
2) Aurora a.k.a. Brier Rose (Sleeping Beauty)
3) Belle (Beauty and the Beast)
4) Jasmine (Aladdin)
5) Maid Marien (Robin Hood)
6)Mulan (Mulan) Note: She is not really a princess, but if you look at all of Disney's princess merchandise Mulan is included. I love Mulan so she makes it on my list.
7)Ariel (Little Mermaid)
8) Cinderella (Cinderella)
9) Snow White (Snow White)

You may notice that Snow White is at the bottom of the list. I HATE Snow White. Her high pitched voice, her complaining nature, and her lack of fashion sense makes me want to barf! Fortunately for Snow White this movie also has seven dwarfs that counteract her lameness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but little people are fantastic. Just look at Wee Man:



Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is based on a fairy tell collected by the Brothers Grimm about a vain queen that wants to be the fairest in the land. When her magic mirror tells her that Snow White is the fairest in the land, she vows to destroy her. Snow White runs to the woods and happens upon a little cottage that houses seven little men. What do they do? Why of course they sing.

Have you ever noticed that in almost every princess movie the princess has some sort of unnatural power over animals and she gets them to do what she wants by simply singing about it. I don't know about you, but whenever I sing to squirrels they just run away. They don't help me do anything. Snow White has this ability, and she selfishly uses it to make the animals help her do her chores. It goes something like this:



This movie, as much as I hate Snow White, is a classic. It's full of memorable tunes, iconic moments, and it was the first of its kind. If you haven't seen it yet then you had a terrible childhood...I bet you watched nothing but Nova on PBS didn't you? You're sick!

The bottom line:
Rating: 4.1
Would I own it? I wouldn't wanna raise my kids without it.
Would I recommend it? You know it brother!

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

I apologize to all of you for not writing a review in a while. It doesn't mean I haven't been watching movies. In fact, as I write this review I have four more to write. It's just like how I do my homework: I let it pile up until it's too much to handle. Oh well on to the review!

As you have all learned from my Apocalypse Now review, I have a problem with staying on task in classes that I think are ridiculous. As well as never reading The Heart of Darkness, I never finished One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I put off reading it until the last day of class, and needed to B.S. a report. The natural choice was to just rent the movie. So I stayed up all night watching the movie, wrote the report at about 6 A.M. and then went to class. For the record I got full credit on the report, and got an A out of the class. God Bless procrastination. I watched this movie again for this review, and it hit home a little bit more because now I've actually been to an insane asylum. I spent some time in the great country of Poland and we just figured we should go see the local crazies. It was a pretty horrible experience. Everyone was in their pajamas, and the hallway smelled like urine. Of course now that I think about it every hallway in Poland smelled like urine. I grew up thinking that insane asylums were a lot of fun and where everyone danced in straight jackets. At least that's the way that Good Burger made it seem.

It goes without saying that my preconceptions about loony bins were challenged on that fateful winter day. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a little bit closer to my actual experience. I'm just happy I wasn't watching it in "Smell-O-Vision".

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is about inmate Randle Patrick McMurphy, played by a young Jack Nicholson, who gets sent to a mental institution for evaluation. While there he inspires all the fellow patients to rebel against the authority of the head nurse Mildred Ratched. Mildred is the embodiment of authority, and McMurphy has a problem with authority. You do the math.

Before I tell you what I thought about this movie, why don't you hear what a professional critic had to say about it:


In all seriousness, this movie was pretty good. Unlike the book, which is from the perspective of the mute Native American patient named Chief, this movie takes a real third person outlook. While this means there are no hallucinations, it does afford a real "big picture" view of the situation. The funnest part about this movie was seeing all the big actors in one of their first movies. This movie had Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, and William Redfield (He later went on to star in the award winning movie Child's Play as the voice of Chucky...brilliant performance). This was certainly a 70's movie, and maybe a little slow paced at times, but it was a was a good story with some fun characters.

The bottom line:
Rating: 3.9
Would I own it? I'm glad I saw it, but I probably wouldn't own it.
Would I recommend it? What are you crazy? I totally would.

High Noon (1952)

A lot of people dreamed of being a cowboy at one time or another. Most of my friends say that Back to the Future III is their favorite, and I think it is a product of this desire. I've never really wanted to be a cowboy, and this is made evident in the fact that my favorite Back to the Future is part 2. The Wild West is hot, dirty, and nobody had teeth. The future is air-conditioned, clean, and safe.



For those of you that do dream of cowboys (and of their butts squeezed into Wranglers) High Noon has everything you could want: guns, booze, outlaws, and the modern L.A. skyline accidentally shown in the background.

High Noon is about Will Kane, a small town Marshall, who is retiring after marrying his Quaker wife. As he is turning in his star the town receives word that an outlaw arrested by Kane is returning and is bent on revenge. Things are guaranteed to get out of hand, but Kane must face this outlaw, and his gang, alone because the townsfolk are a bunch of cowards.

The title High Noon sounds like it belongs to an epic cowboy shootout movie, but that is not the case. There was very little shooting at all. I'm not going to say that the movie was boring, but it certainly wasn't nail-biting. If you ignore the fact that an hour of this movie is a lot of talking while Will Kane is searching for special deputies, and then the last half hour is actual fighting, then you could call the movie exciting. On top of that, if you ignore the fact that the fight scenes look like something straight out of the Batman T.V. show

then the movie gets to be pretty dang awesome. All in all it's a semi-decent cowboy movie, but not my style. I'd rather see flying cars.

The bottom line:
Rating: 3.5
Would I own it? Not before I own 3:10 to Yuma (the remake with Christian Bale)
Would I recommend it? Only to folks wearing spurs.

Godfather II (1974)

If there's one thing that everyone can agree on it's that sequels suck. Ask anyone what they think of sequels and they'll say, "I hate sequels, they're never as good as the original...except for Back to the Future...those sequels are great." If you don't believe me, here's a list of terrible sequels. Go find out for yourself:

1) Return of Jafar
2) Home Alone 3 (part 2 was ok)
3) Tremors 2
4) Tremors 3
5) Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea
6) Air Buddies
7) Alien vs. Predator
8) Pokemon 2 (That's not fair because the first one sucked too)

While most sequels do in fact suck, there are a handful of sequels that are great, or at least tolerable. While The Godfather II wasn't amazing, and it wasn't as good as the original, it fell in the tolerable category.

The Godfather II tries to be a lot more artistic than the first movie by following two plots at once. The first plot picks up where the first movie left off. It follows Michael Corleone as he deals with the emotional strain of being the head of the family, and how he deals with a recent attempt on his life. The second plot follows the beginnings of Michael's father Don Corleone, and shows his trip from poverty in Sicily to his life of organized crime in New York.

Al Pacino returns to his role as Michael Corleone and that role set the pace for the rest of his career. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that Al Pacino only plays gangsters. I think it's time for another list. He plays (I may have missed a few):

1) Michael Corleone in The Godfather
2) Lefty Ruggiero in Donnie Brasco
3) John Milton in The Devil's Advocate (Technically he was Satan who is the ultimate gangster)
4) Tony Montana in Scarface
5) Willy Bank in Ocean's Thirteen (Everyone knows casino owners are all gangsters)
6) Starkman in Gigli
7) Carlito Brigante in Carlito's Way
8) Big Boy in Dick Tracy



Type casting at its finest!

Robert De Niro plays Don Vito (who later becomes Don Corleone) and does a great job picking up the character where Marlon Brando left off. To be honest De Niro's performance was the only one in the movie of consequence. The whole film just seemed tired and dragged out. Even the music that I loved so much from the first movie was dry and boring. This movie, although full of iconic scenes, really left a lot to be desired. I suppose you can't expect much from a sequel though.

The bottom line:
Rating: 3.0
Would I own it? Forget about it
Would I recommend it? Probably not

All About Eve (1950)

I like going to the theater as much as the next person. The only problem with going to the theater is that you might be forced to watch a terrible display of acting. One time I went to see a performance of "Into the Woods" and the kid playing the baker was constantly hunched over. It was similar to the way that David Caruso always leans his head when he says his "scene buttoners" on CSI: Miami.



The plus side to the theater, however, is that you might see a really great performance. I once went to see "The Drowsy Chaperone" (It's just a coincidence that both of my examples are musicals...I don't like musicals if that's what you're thinking.) and the guy playing the groom sang his big solo number while blindfolded and roller skating across the stage. I was amazed. Why am I talking in great length about the theater? Well All About Eve is about an aging broadway diva and her number one fan.

Bette Davis plays Margo Channing who is considered one of the greatest stage performers of all time. When she meets Eve (played by Anne Baxter), a humble starstruck fan who has lived a difficult life, she gives Eve a job as her assistant. Eve is everything that Margo could have dreamed of until it turns out that Eve is not who she claims to be. Her only goal is to become a big star for herself, and it doesn't matter who she has to step on to get there.

As I said earlier, I like the theater. I, however, think it's a load of crap when someone puts theater on a pedestal above movies simply because it's theater. I have seen amazing performances in movies, and isn't that what's important? All throughout this movie everyone talked about the inferiority of movies, and the ultimate senority of the theater. It goes without saying that they also dogged on television. Interestingly enough, most of Anne Baxter's career was in television. Didn't think about that one did you A-holes?

The thing that I found most interesting about this movie is that Bette Davis actually has Bette Davis Eyes:



All in all this movie was ok. A little boring at times, and like most old movie a little over the top, but nothing I would call terrible. Chalk this one up to another so-so movie that has found it's way onto the list of the greatest movies of all time. Bette Davis did a great job playing a diva, which makes me wonder if she really was one. Anne Baxter did a good job as well. Come to think of it everyone gave a satisfactory performance, but the plot was lacking something. I found it hard to care about the movie when so much time was spent on talking about great acting without a stunning performance from the actors themselves. This movie wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great.

The bottom line:
Rating: 3.3
Would I own it? I don't plan on it.
Would I recommend it? Sure, why not?

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of movies I haven't even heard of. The Maltese Falcon is a perfect example of this. Judging from the title alone it sounds like it could either be a horror film, or a nature documentary. Come to find out it's neither. The Maltese Falcon is actually a standard private eye movie starring Humphrey Bogart. I know what you're thinking, "A private eye movie with the great Humphrey Bogart? That sounds amazing!" News Flash: It's not. The synopsis of the movie, according to Netflix.com, is as follows:

Humphrey Bogart stars as private eye Sam Spade in this Oscar-nominated noir classic that finds the sultry Miss Wonderly (Mary Astor) seeking out protection from a man named Thursby. Spade's partner (Jerome Cowan) takes the case -- but he winds up dead, along with Thursby. Spade's subsequent hunt for the killer leads him into a world of deception and double-crossing, as a trio of criminals searches for a priceless statue known as the Maltese Falcon.

Now you're probably thinking, "That movie sounds even cooler than I originally thought." Well you're wrong again. To show you how much I hated this movie, here's just a small list of movies I think should be on AFI's list instead of The Maltese Falcon:

Ernest Goes to Camp
All of The Land Before Time movies (except for part 11)
Blank Check
Alien vs. Predator
Barbie's Swan Lake
Muppets Take Manhattan
Muppets Take Acid (Hasn't been made yet...I'm still trying to sell the script)
The Sandlot
The Princess Bride
Ernest Scared Stupid
Any Veggie Tales movie

The reason I hated this movie so badly was all the character interactions. The characters would be mad at each other, suddenly be partners, and then inexplicably they would break out in song (that last part isn't true but it illustrates just how stupidly these characters were portrayed). In all fairness I probably wouldn't have hated this boring film so much if I wasn't so bitter about all the old, dumb movies I've had to watch lately. You decide for yourself if my hatred for this movie is a by product of all the old movies I've had to watch, or if it's just a dumb movie. In the mean time here's a decent Private Eye show:



The bottom line:
Rating: 2.3
Would I own it? Never
Would I recommend it? Not even to my worst enemies...at least I didn't hate it as badly as 2001 Space Odyssey.

Apocalypse Now (1979)

I have seen a lot of movies that I didn't like the first time. When I have watch them again I find that I like them more (even if it's ever so slightly). I think it is because I notice things about the movie that I didn't notice before. I have watched Apocalypse Now twice, and I did notice more about the movie the second time. The only problem is that the things that I noticed made me hate the movie more. I suppose you don't need to finish reading this review because you know how I feel, but then you wouldn't hear me complain about how dumb this movie was.

Apocalypse Now takes place during the Vietnam war. Martin Sheen plays a special operations captain, Captain Willard. Captain Willard is given an assignment to go deep into the Cambodian jungle to kill a rogue, and insane, Colonel Kurtz (played by Marlon Brando). What follows is a strange, and mostly boring, three hours of Vietnam war stuff. This movie gave me the impression that Francis Ford Coppola was trying to make the quintessential Vietnam movie (like The Band of Brothers is for WWII) but he fell very short of his goal. Probably because he based it on "The Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad.

Let me take a moment and talk about "The Heart of Darkness." My senior year in High School I was in an A.P. Literature class. One of our assignments was to read this book. I really gave it an honest try, but could not get past the first 5 pages. It was so boring. Me being the lazy S.O.B. that I am, I decided to never open that book again. On top of us being expected to read this book on our own, we reread everything again as a class. You would think that I would at least listen then. WRONG! I slept instead. Needless to say, when it came time for the test I was a little unprepared. Five minutes before class started I asked a girl that was in my class what the book was about. As we walked to class together she gave me a rough outline of the plot. Armed with that knowledge I took the test, and got the highest score in the class. That says a lot about our education system doesn't it? Now back to the movie.

The Vietnam war, as everyone knows, was very controversial. Compared to WWII, which is seen as a very noble war, Vietnam is seen as one big mistake. That doesn't stop people from doing Vietnam reenactments at country clubs all over the country.



In all seriousness though, a lot of people came home from Vietnam completely messed up. But then again, who wouldn't be messed up after experiences like the one below?



Not to get too political, but maybe Vietnam wouldn't have turned out so badly if we didn't have the draft. There are a lot of people in this country I wouldn't want to have a rifle in their hands. With the draft everyone was there, so a lot of people that had no business fighting in a war got themselves killed.

Basically this movie confused me, made me tired, and made me angry that I had to waste so much time to watch it. That's three hours of my life (6 if you count the previous viewing) that I will never get back.

The bottom line:
Rating: 2.3
Would I own it? Do pigs have wings?
Would I recommend it? I would recommend the movie "Spy Kids" over this movie.

Double Indemnity (1944)

I am so sorry to all my devote fans (all 6 of you) for not writing in such a long time. I must be honest I really didn't want to start the next few movies on the list. I finally sucked it up and watched the next few movies on the list. Here is Double Indemnity:


It's no secret that I don't like being pulled over. It's because I never get pulled over for being a bad driver. I always get pulled over because I forgot to put my registration stickers on my license plate. My least favorite part about being pulled over is not the actual pulling over, but that the officer will pull me over for one thing and then give me a ticket for something else entirely. For example a while back I got pulled over for, you guessed it, registration. As if he was doing me a favor the officer didn't give me a ticket for it. What a nice guy, right? WRONG! He was more than happy to give me a ticket for no insurance. His smug expression said it all, "Got you punk!" In my defense, I had insurance I just didn't put my proof in my glove box. Also it is important to note that most of my pull over experiences happened in high school. Why am I bringing this up? Well because Double Indemnity is about a life insurance policy, and a murder plot...the connection was kind of a stretch, I realize that.

Walter Neff is a honest insurance agent. On a routine trip to the house of a man that owns car insurance with his company Walter meets Phyllis. Her husband is gone, but she is interested in finding out more about life insurance so she invites him in. Maybe it's just the way that strangers talked to each other back then, but almost immediately Walter and Phyllis begin dropping hints that they both want to do the no pants dance together. Long story short they decide that they are going to off Phyllis' husband and collect on a life insurance policy. A life insurance policy, I might add, that he didn't even know he had. Walter covers the plan from every angle so as to throw the company's claims investigator off the scent. Despite all their planning, the investigator feels that something isn't quite right.

This movie was very predictable. I was surprised by their clever plan, but I knew in the first few minutes of the movie how it was going to play out. I suppose that's what I get for watching CSI.

Note: I apologize for the poor quality of this clip. It's the only one I could find:



The movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. It was made while WWII was still going on, so with that considered it's pretty impressive. Even with that in mind it doesn't make the movie amazing. All in all this was an average movie.

The bottom line:
Rating: 3.5
Would I own it? I really don't see that happening.
Would I recommend it? I guess...it's good as far as insurance movies go.

Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

I'm not one for politics. It has been my experience that all politicians are self centered rich kids with nothing better to do than make posters that either rip off the slogan of a major company, or make puns on their names such as:

1) Vote for Jason Wright. It's the Wright choice.
2) No.2 pencil-$.32, Eraser-$.25, Voting for Jack Lelaine-priceless.
3) Don't be a Commie, vote for Tommy.
4) Danny "Indiana" Jones for V.P.
5) Vote for Hanson. We'll go dancin'.
6) With me it's always Summer. Vote for Summer Wheatly.
7) The choice is easy, vote for Tim Parcheesi.
8) Count on someone who can count. Emily for Treasurer.

It's just so hard to get elected. Not only is it difficult to make posters, but it's difficult to write campaign speeches:



If you decide to run for office, and somehow you can make it past all these difficulties you will soon find that you have a whole new set of difficulties after you get elected. Suddenly you have to deal with corrupt politicians, wake up every morning on time, and for some reason everyone expects you to know how a bill becomes a law:



In my opinion, it's just not worth it. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is about a politician and all the problems he faced after being put into office.

Jefferson Smith is the leader of a group of boys similar to the Boy Scouts. When a Senator dies Jim Taylor, a rich business man, and all of his corrupt politicians work to replace the Senator with Mr. Smith. Why? They have a plan to pass a bill for personal gain, and need a patsy to not ask any questions. Little do they know Jefferson is an extreme idealist that believes in America. With the help of his street wise secretary Jefferson makes a bill to help troubled boys by setting up a government funded camp. The problem is that the camp's location is right where Jim Taylor wants to build a dam. What follows is politics at it's best as Mr. Taylor tries to undo the damage that Mr. Smith has made to his money making scheme.

This movie is actually quite funny. I was very surprised because I expected it to be boring. Don't misunderstand me: It was not as funny as Dumb and Dumber, but it certainly wasn't as boring as Gone with the Wind. Not only that but I identified, and sympathized, with the characters. I even reached the point of swearing every time Jim Taylor was on the screen. The only drawback to this movie was just how much politics there actually was. Like I said earlier, I don't like politics. Still, it was not enough to make me hate this movie.

The bottom line:
Rating: 4.0
Would I own it? Probably not.
Would I recommend it? Yes, it was entertaining.

To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)

There seems to be a never-ending supply of Great Depression movies. I'm no economist but they tell me that the Stock Market crash was kind of a big deal. I, rather than investing my money in stocks, have invested my money in fast food. The amount of money I spend on cheeseburgers every month would make your head spin. I suppose it's a bad investment. Anyway, To Kill
A Mockingbird takes place a few years after the Stock Market crash and is a film about racism, childhood innocence, the loss of that innocence, and the creepy neighbor next door.

Gregory Peck plays Atticus Finch, a mild mannered lawyer who is also a widower with two kids. Gregory Peck, in real life, had three kids and from what I understand they were quite a handful:



Mr. Finch's two kids, Scout and Jem, are the definition of "children living in a simpler time." The storyline (both in the book and the movie) is from Scout's perspective. The story has two main bullet points:

1) The elusive, and supposedly insane, Boo Radley. Like all childhood fears everything that is known about Boo is a "I heard it from a guy, who heard it from another guy" kind of scenario. All that is known for certain through most of the movie is that Boo is living in the basement and only comes out at night.

2) The trial of a black man accused of raping a white woman (you can imagine what a big deal this would be in the 30's). This is where most of the racism is addressed.

It's hard to give a meaningful review of this movie without giving too much of the plot away. I will just simply say that this movie causes many emotions to be felt, is a brilliant sample of Americana, and the ending gave me chills. The movie made me want to read the book again because so much of the book is not included in the film. For example the book gives a lot of detail about Boo's past where the movie does not. This gives the ending of the movie kind of an abrupt unresolved feeling, but to that I say, "If you're worried about being disappointed by the abrupt ending then pick up the freaking book and read it dummy."

The bottom line:
Rating: 4.2
Would I own it? Maybe...I did go out and buy the book right after the movie got over.
Would I recommend it? I already have.

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

People have always been afraid of aliens. Why else do you think the Mexican border is so hard to get across? I bet when I said "aliens" you thought I was talking about spacemen didn't you? Well I was...wrap your head around that one. What is it about our society that makes us think that aliens would only come thousands of light-years to Earth to take us over? Are we really that self-centered? Unlike many other alien movies E.T. shows a group of aliens whose only purpose for coming to Earth seems to be to gain knowledge. What's so scary about that? Apparently a lot. I've heard of many people being scared of E.T. when they were little. One such example is skateboarder Ron Deily. In an interview with Thrasher magazine he said, "For three or four years I used to have night terrors about E.T. coming down the hallway, standing in front of my door, and #@&%ing with my little brothers. I used to be on the top bunk. He would walk slowly over to my bunk bed, crawl up, and hover over me while I'm freaking out under the blankets. It was so real to me it was retarded. I would stay up for days. It was the craziest $%#@ ever and it happened in three different houses...I'd be throwing pillows at him and he'd run out of the room screaming."

E.T. is really nothing to be afraid of. The movie is about a society of aliens that come to Earth on a knowledge quest. When it's time to go all the aliens get on board the spaceship except for one little guy. Ever wonder why he got left behind? Well wonder no more:



After being left behind, E.T. (which is just a nickname given to him by some earth kids) finds his way to a little broken home. He does so narrowly escaping the man with the jingle keys, who appears to be some sort of government worker. Elliot, who lives with his brother, sister, and newly divorced mother, finds E.T. and like any kid with a newly found animal tries to keep it for a pet. They form an emotional bond, meaning that they feel each others' emotions, and begin to have adventures together. When the man with the jingle keys finds E.T.'s whereabouts all hell breaks loose, and so E.T. and Elliot will stop at nothing to get E.T. home.

This movie has become such a classic that on the 20th anniversary they re-released E.T. to the silver screen. I knew back then that I would regret it if I didn't go see it on the big screen, but that didn't get me to go. I will forever live in regret knowing that I didn't go see it when I had the chance. Just as well I suppose. For the 20th anniversary they did some alterations, including changing the shotguns in the government agents' hands for walkie-talkies.

This movie is filled with funny moments, great special effects, and a story line that pulls at the heart strings. Steven Spielberg, the director, has said that it is the highlight of his career. Something you may not know: E.T. is loosely based on an imaginary friend that Spielberg had when his parents got a divorce. Pretty cool huh?

The bottom line:
Rating: 4.6
Would I own it? You know it dude.
Would I recommend it? You know it dude...again.

Grapes of Wrath (1940)

There is something seriously wrong with our education system. For some reason students are constantly attacked on all sides by good literature. Why is this a bad thing? Most of the time the literature being shoved down the students' necks is way beyond their level. When I was in High School there were still kids in my classes that had a hard time reading Dr. Suess. How are they supposed to read such greats as Steinbeck or Dickens? Not only that but the content is way beyond their comprehension. Are you going to stand there and tell me that a 9th grader is going to give a crap about racism or the Great Depression? Of course not. All they care about is that Cindy just started wearing bras, or that Jack has facial hair. I'm bringing all this up because it was mandatory for a lot of 9th graders to watch The Grapes of Wrath (they were also required to watch To Kill A Mockingbird which I will talk about later because it too is on AFI's list). Let's be honest, as a 9th grader The Grapes of Wrath would be torture. As a full grown man, however, The Grapes of Wrath was a decent show.

The Grapes of Wrath follows Tom Joad, a man fresh out of prison for homicide. Tom comes home to find that his family has been forced off their land in Oklahoma. They have no choice but to pack up everything they own and go find work in California. It was a lot like the Beverly Hillbillies, except instead of being rich they were poor. Speaking of Beverly Hillbillies here is a lovely little ditty by Weird Al from the movie "UHF."



A road trip of that magnitude was a lot harder then than it is now. Nowadays people make that drive in a day, stopping off at the occasional Maverik to buy a Bahama-Mama. Back then it took weeks, and people died along the way. This movie was no exception. I ain't gonna say who dies, but just know that people die trying to make the trip. I can think of several people I would take with me on a road trip if it meant their death.

This movie was pretty depressing, but that's what it was like back then. On a lighter note, John Carradine is in this movie. Don't know who he is? Well he is none other than the father of David Carradine, star of the T.V. series Kung-fu. David also plays Bill in the movie Kill Bill. Pretty neat, huh? Well I thought so anyway.

The bottom line:
Rating: 3.9
Would I own it? No. I'm happy I watched it, but may never watch it again. I like feel-good movies.
Would I recommend it? I would, but not to 9th graders.