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!