Cam Bert

For those of you that are curious the drive from Boston to San Francisco is actually pretty straight forward. Leaving Boston on I-90 until outside of Chicago at which point you get on I-80 which will take you all the way to San Francisco the drive from city to city is 3,096 miles or 4,983 kilometers and would take an average driving time of 45 hours. Now Dr. Taylor is a doctor who does do surgeries so she is probably use to long periods without sleep. However, driving straight for 45 hours is pushing it. Let's assume she took two breaks from driving in that time. We are looking at almost exactly two and half days which is what Paul, Jason, and June said off hand. However, this raises the interesting point of if she did drive what happened to her car? From San Francisco she's constantly flying, driving and hot air ballooning with Pavarotti all over the place. Eventually when she does leave him they are no longer in San Francisco so she'd have no means of transportation to get back to Boston and if she flew back her car would still be in San Fran. Then again Pavarotti is so ridiculously rich that he could hire someone to drive the car back to Boston for it. Still it seems more likely she was being sarcastic.

What would be really interesting but painstakingly hard to put together is a series of sequels dedicated to maybe just the top 10 films of different countries based on that country's AFI equivalent or critics circle chosen greatest films. Not only do you cover the classics of various countries but it is an interesting look into what each country values in their films and what films other nations overlook.

Completely agree with those thoughts and feelings. As far as world cinema goes save that for their follow up open ended series "Unspool the The World" If we all dream hard enough maybe we can make it happen.

Raymond Burr's character's name is Steve Martin.

That's the glory of the unedited version. You get his songs as a little breaks to process the movie as beautiful music fills your ears.

So if you account for inflation a $20 show in 1933 would be the same as paying $387.68 today to see a show. And what exactly does that money get you? You see Kong on stage chained up and barely able to move while you have a movie director doing a lame one man show in front of it. Not to mention for two cents the next day you could see a picture of Kong and not have to listen to the Denham.

Every Frame a Painting is a great series. I think I heard he's working for Filmstruck now.

For me personally, even though I don't love King Kong, I think the technical side of things are so impressive that it deserves to be on the list. This movie was doing things effects wise that even twenty or years later they weren't doing as well. It was really ahead of the curve on that kind of stuff. The easiest parallel I can think of is if you think of modern actors working on a green screen reacting to tennis balls that will be a monster. That's basically this movie, but eighty plus years ago. These were pioneering effects and ways of making a movie, not to mention the score. Therefore it deserves a spot. However, if we were allowed to put on non-American films I would say the originally Japanese non-Steve Martin version of Godzilla is the better example of a monster movie with a complex story. If your only familiar with the later versions of Godzilla as in the "Godzilla vs" movies the original is a completely different thing. On the surface you think it is just a movie about a giant lizard destroying a city, but there is much more to it than that. It is a movie with a lot of subtext about post war Japan and the sometimes obvious but sometimes subtly done fear and destructive power of radiation and nuclear weapons. Of course you can choose to ignore that as Toho did going forward as well.

I have to question whether or not the love story was intentional terrible or not. When Denham is explaining why he needs an actress for the movie he complains that after he works hard to make a movie the critics and exhibitors claim "if this movie had a love interest it'd gross twice as much." He also cites this is what the public wants and it makes him sore. Cut to twenty minutes later or so and we have John and Ann fall in love out of nowhere. Was this the writer and director giving the critics and exhibitors what they wanted? Were they aware they were doing what they just complained about? I'd like to think this was some meta message.

You're right. Also not to bring it up again but if we'd also seen Nadine walking her dogs and basically being ignored compared to Judy Garland that would have been something as well. I guess the idea is suppose to be "she went from nobody and now two guys took her picture."

This past year I have now watched three movies with Fred Astaire and now fully convinced that he is one of the most charming leading men ever.

He might not be but at the beginning of the movie after Nadine directly comes on to him after dumping Astaire, he leaves to check on him, only to turn around and go back to hers fully knowing her intent. Then again later on he is trying to get them back together. Who knows what's going on in that head of his.

Apparently according to IMDB trivia the part of Don was originally suppose to be played by Gene Kelly and not Fred Astaire. I think that makes a bit more sense to me.

I think the other thing, especially in Star Wars's case, is that the first one was such an impressive visual effects feat that it is rewarding the first film that did it which would be the first in the series.

The moment Fred Astaire says "Why I could take any girl and make her a star" I'm like I know where this story is going. Would Hannah really be better off with Peter Lawford? The guy was coming on very strong and does seem to be playing the field a bit. I bet he would have broken her heart eventually.

I hope when you saw that the "You win" music from the minis played in your head.

Seeing as Astaire has seemingly been sitting in wait for her to return maybe a neighbour called the police about a stranger hanging around in the building and it just took him awhile to get there. It was very weird. Between that and the "bring the dogs" comment it felt like they were running out of time at the end and just had to wrap it up. Also something I've notice in these classic musicals we've been watching, people living in hotels.

Also I think I must have missed something because why was Astaire escorted away by a cop at the end?

I think this is one of those cases in which Fred Astaire was suppose to be much younger that he's portrayed to be. At one point he says they go way back and he's like family so maybe Fred Astaire is friends with his father?

Yes!!!! He seems uninterested in Nadine at first because of Don's feelings for her, but then after talking to Don in the bar goes back to her. Then he tries to pretend he's not going to be rich in case that's why she was into him, and she's unfazed. Then later on it seems as if they are dating, or at that point was Nadine dating Ziegfried? Then it's played up as if he's going to break Don and Hannah up so he can be with Hannah. Yet he was still being supportive. It was confusing and so was his accent but I loved his fashion.

I mean the movie tried a bit to play with the idea that his innocence is questionable but ultimately I think it puts too much into the innocent side to really leave it a question for the viewer to determine. Again, I think the novella keeps this a bit more ambiguous. Andy helps Tommy turn his life around and when he finally does he magically remembers this story that can prove Andy's innocence. The timing is questionable enough but in the novella the warden doesn't have him murdered rather transfers him to another prison. He may be innocent of the murder of his wife but was certainly guilty of fraud. Also he felt guilt for the murder because he felt his actions pushed her away and ultimately lead to her death. Anyway, to me the issue of Andy's innocence or not doesn't effect the movie too much because I always viewed it as Red's story. Yes, it literally is his story as he's telling us what happened but it is more than that. While Andy does get his redemption from his guilt, it's more about how his actions and his way of thinking changed Red and the prison in general. It's not a story of one man's personal redemption but rather how his actions gave hope to others and through that many got their chance as well. He's the catalyses for change and we see that in the actions of others and ultimately through Red. To compare briefly to one of my all time favourite films and a far better prison movie, Cool Hand Luke. Luke's actions on the surface seem very self serving, but what he is doing is not for him but it's for the other inmates and gives them hope. Andy to the a lesser degree is that in Shawshank and that change he brings is not hindered or hurt by his guilt or innocence. While I agree it would make his character more complex, but making him guilty I think would go against the not so subtle "Andy suffered for their sins" religious allegory of the film.

Yes exactly. It's this weird thing this list seems to have with including one thing to represent all of something which we talked about before with The French Connection and Top Hat. While I understand that it still doesn't sit right with me.

Was it? I must have missed it. Still, really of all the Disney film Snow White?

It's been awhile since I read the novella that this movie was based on, and I was trying to remember what the major differences were. You have the obvious things, like Red being a white Irish guy, and somethings that just make more sense for a movie like in the book there are multiple wardens and head guards while it the movie they just have one the entire time. However, I think the biggest difference I can recall is the ending. In the novella, it ends with Red getting on a bus Mexico bound. That's it. The movie takes in the next step further and has Red and Andy meeting on the beach. It may not seem like much of a change but I think it is a rather big one. The novella we are uncertain like Red what fate awaits him. Will him make it across? Will he find him? etc. It end on a note of hope. He hopes it'll happen, he hopes it'll be as beautiful, he hopes that he'll find Andy. However, in the movie the beach shot is so dramatically different. The tone and colours are brighter as the camera moves out to a big open shot of the beach, in stark comparison to the more muted and confined feeling of the rest of the movie. We like the characters are finally free. It is a more emotional release. If the movie ended on this note of curious hope, I don't think the movie would work as well.

You are right it is odd that there isn't one documentary on the list. Animation was over looked until the 2007 update which put Toy Story on which I have some thoughts about but will save until that episode. Even though they are talking about real events, there still is an art to it and their story telling. The editing to credit the story and the flow of it, how they use that to control and influence your emotions or thoughts. Other than "It's not a written narrative with actors" I can't think of a reason they might be excluded. I can think of some documentaries that are better than some of the movies on this list.