#132 Toy Story

Let's take a minute to appreciate the genius of the concept of this movie. It's in a world where toys come to life when you're not playing with them. They can walk and talk, they each have personalities, they feel pain and even love. Woody is the leader, and they have an organised political system, meetings and everything. And, moreover they actually like being played with, but never reveal to Andy that they can talk.

One of my favourite moments of this movie is right at the start when it is Andy's birthday and they are trying to figure out if there is going to be any new toys to join their group. On Woody's orders, the army toys set up a walkie talkie and hide it in a plant pot. The system is organised and intelligent. Not something people usually think of when toy story is mentioned.

This is perhaps the only movie on this list that I have watched as a child and I appreciate it now as much as I did then. Perhaps even more so, since now there is an element of reminiscence as well. It was fun to re-appreciate some of the best moments, including Woody's "You are a toy" speech, "The Claw", and of course the best moment - when the toy's are trying to scare Sid, and Woody starts exclaiming that they don't like being hurt and he finishes it by saying: "So play nice".

Speaking of which, from this we gather that it actually is possible for them to talk and move while humans are watching, so why then do they not? Perhaps its some kind of "Toy Code" or "Toy Law" where for the sake of mankind, they think its best kept a secret. But why then does Buzz, not believing that he is a toy, still feel the need to stop when Andy approaches? I assume its some kind of Toy instinct, where even if they can't seem to think of a decent reason, they naturally stop moving whenever a human comes near. I also feel that deep down Buzz knows that he's a toy, but that he's just denying it. This stuff isn't ever properly explained, but I guess it is a kids movie and you're not supposed to look into it in too much depth. And I never really did, until now.

So every movie has a "bad guy" character and in the case of this one it wasn't one of the toys. All of the toys in the movie, including the mutilated ones, were good. Sure, they all had elements of immoral behaviour and disagreement but there wasn't an evil toy. The evil character was in fact Sid, one of the humans. He is portrayed as evil, as he would be in the eye of the toys, but in truth he's just a harmless boy who assumes, like most of us, that toys are inanimate and takes pleasure cutting them up and putting them back together again. Heck, the kid probably grows up to be an engineer.

Anyway, this movie is a definite classic. I think its a great concept, cleverly applied. It's the sort of movie they show around christmas every year, and so I'm sure I'll be watching it again soon.

#082 Full Metal Jacket

I'm surprised at how war-time movies are actually very often a genre I enjoy. I don't see myself as much of a soldier; I would never consider joining the army but somehow the whole experience appeals to me

The first half of this movie is spent in a marine training camp. Everything about the place is ridiculously strict and everything is done in unison, getting up and going to bed is done as a drill. Every time someone other than the drill sergeant speaks they must shout and they must say "sir" both before and after they've finished speaking.

This whole section of the movie seems like it goes on for a very long time. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because it is quite interesting to see it all happening but there doesn't really appear to be a storyline. It's just shot after shot of drill training. You get quite sick of the constant shouting after a while. The only vaguely interesting thing is to see Private Pyle, being not as physically fit as the rest of them, struggling to keep up. He is picked on from the very first day by the drill sergeant, and its interesting to see him being slowly driven more and more insane by the whole experience. His friend, Private 'Joker', who tries to help Pyle throughout his experience ends up being the main focus on the rest of the film.

The rest feels like a totally different film. Just as you are starting to think the whole film will just be at the training camp, the movie begins. Its quite clever because you get the juxtaposition between the way soldiers are trained to behave and the way they actually behave. The feel of it is quite relaxed, and the soldiers are hardly ever given direct orders, but they still have that background training to always obey when they are given them.

The scene that sticks in my mind in the second half of the film Is the bit where they are trying to take down a sniper. It's really interesting to see army tactics being put into practice in the real world. It all looks quite simple when on paper but when the soldiers are really out there there's a lot of uncertainty a lot of change of plans.

Also "Surfin' Bird" is in the soundtrack. Pretty weird for it to be taken seriously after seeing Peter Griffin from "Family Guy" dancing to it.

#015 Goodfellas

"I'm funny how? Funny like a clown?"

I've noticed after watching these movies its started to make me understand cultural references that have been lost on me in the past. The "You think I'm funny?" line has definitely been referenced somewhere before. I also finally understand the whole "The first rule of fight club" thing too.

This film is really good. It's a really similar style to "Casino", in that there is a lot of narration and the story moves very quickly, but for some reason I liked "Goodfellas" a whole lot more and I think there are several reasons for this.

I reckon "Casino" was an attempt at copying the "magic" that "Goodfellas" had. It had a lot of the same actors and was done by the same director in the same style. But I reckon this formula hardly ever works. It is difficult to re-create something because at the time it was innovative and the recreation is inevitably going to be unoriginal.

Also, "Goodfellas" follows a boy from a very young age, and takes you through his life, showing you how he became a gangster, meeting people along the way, whereas "Casino" just drops you in the middle of a bunch of characters. I feel that this allows you to sympathise with the lead character a lot more and understand his point of view because you've literally seen it from his perspective.

The whole organisation of these gangster/mafia movies is quite an interesting concept. Essentially They take whatever they want - which is why they have so much money. They use that money to gain the loyalty of other people, so that when someone tries to stop them, they just threaten that person with guns and numbers. Or if the person really pisses them off, they'll just kill them. The whole operation is highly organised and probably just as tiresome as getting a real job. But they don't do it for an easy life, they do it because its all they know, as we see from the perspective of Henry Hill, the lead character.

A good film.

#025 The Silence of the Lambs

"I can't decide between Lamb or Duck"

"Well, of course, Lambs are scarier, otherwise the film would've been called 'Silence of the Ducks'."

I actually thought this film was going to be scary. The name sounds very scary. It's a reference to the lead character's childhood, when she ran way from home on the farm in order to escape the awful sound of the crying lambs. Or something like that.

Hmm, so its a crime thriller about a Cannibal and a dude that takes collects bits of people and puts them together in a Frankensteinian way. I didn't at first realise that it was a part of a series of movies, but now that I know it seems to make more sense. It seemed rather random and kind of oddly paced. It dives right into a story about a student who's made to go see a crazy, albeit brilliant, psychology doctor slash cannibal. Isn't that just odd? I'm told this is the highlight of the series, which doesn't exactly tempt me to see the rest. It wasn't bad, but not good enough that I'd want to watch the rest.

It definitely seemed unfinished. It ends with a cliffhanger. It seemed as there were really two plots going on at once. What should've been the main plot, the hunt for Buffalo Bill, seemed to be more like the sub-plot and felt kind of half-hearted. The second plot was of course about the escape of Hannibal Lecter, which is also the cliffhanger at the end, when he succeeds. The movie really felt like an extended TV show episode, where there was a plot for that episode, but it was part of a bigger plot for the whole series.

I was a little disappointed, although I guess I had no reason to be. No-one had told me anything about the film so I didn't know what to expect. I guess I'd just heard a lot about it from popular culture (hence the quote above) and assumed that it would be brilliant. Also being in the top 250 movies of all time (or even, the top 25) is enough for me to have high assumptions.

I guess it was an interesting character study, if you look at it that way. The psychology of the three main characters (Agent Starling, Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill) was explored extensively and it was quite interesting to see from this perspective.

#014 Fight Club

People were surprised that I hadn't seen this film before. Having just seen it I can see why. Its friggin' awesome. I've now heard from two different people, that in order to get the full effect, you have to watch it again because once you know the ending, there are clues throughout. I actually said the same thing about "Shutter Island" (#239) so definitely agree that this could be the case, so I will watch it again, but perhaps not immediately.

I can safely say that I'm glad I watched this movie and its now up there with my own personal favourites. I really like all these Character-study type movies, especially, apparently, when it turns out that the guy's crazy. Also the fact that what you're seeing isn't actually whats happening seems to effect me at the core. The only films that ever truly terrify me are ones where someone personally isn't responsible for their own actions, and remembers events differently, but what actually happened is shown later on. If you've seen "Blair Witch 2", "Shrooms" or (to some extent) "Shutter Island" you'll understand the sort of thing I'm talking about. Perhaps its some deep fear of the unknown, or of my own sanity. Hmm...

It surprised me that throughout the whole film I hadn't noticed that the lead character had never said his name. We actually checked, and in the credits he's down as "Narrator". Actually now that I think about it, I hardly ever remember the names of people from movies. In fact right now I'm having trouble remembering the character's actual name. Tyler Something. But I would usually have thought about it, like: "what's that guy's name again?". It never occurred to me. It must just have been very cleverly disguised. I mean the film was so weird that there's so many questions all the time so I guess the lead character's name got pushed back behind other things, like "What kind of sick person gets their kicks by pretending to be ill and going to support groups?"

I kind had my suspicions early on but I worked it out probably toward the end. The guy I was watching it with was very good about not spoiling it for me, ignoring my questions.

I liked the mention of the "cigarette burns" (the cue marks that appear as a black circle with a yellow border on film reels) because I've actually seen them in films before and wondered what they were. I'm told they don't often exist any more, because most films these days use digital cameras.

#169 Casino

Watching a movie with someone constantly complaining about how terrible it is really disorientates you. At the minute I feel like I actually quite enjoyed it but I might just be comparing it to the person sitting next to me, clearly feeling like he's being tortured (again, you know who you are!)

I mean I guess when I think about it there wasn't a lot that I enjoyed about it, but it seemed strangely captivating. The narration was sightly odd. Essentially when it started there were some fast -moving establishing shots, with narration over the top, sort of giving you an idea of what the film would be like. I assumed that this would then eventually come to a natural stop and the dialogue would start, but that never really happened. The whole film ended up being in this weird fast-paced story-telling style. There was some dialogue but it was always very short scenes that were skipped over quickly.

But from what I gathered it was basically a mediocre gangster movie, made slightly cooler by Robert De Niro in his comfortable position as the caring but brutal lead role.

I don't have a lot to say about Casino. It got pretty interesting towards the end, but again, a 3 hour epic which doesn't capture the imagination enough to warrant its length.

#037 Toy Story 3

I've decided to give up on the idea of watching all these movies in order. Its just not realistic because I'm borrowing a lot from friends that don't have them all and I'm wanting to watch all the multi-part movies in order.

And also I'm apparently inadvertently watching films that I didn't even realise were on the list, such as this one.

Just a quick note - I'm not going to put big signs up that say "spoilers!" every time I talk about the plot of a movie, mainly because I'm assuming that most people have already seen these movies and also because I assume most people don't really care. But if you do, please check whether or not you've seent he movie before reading the review.

So I've loved the toy story franchise since I was very young. (wow...the first one came out when I was 3!) And the original's a classic, the sort of film that gets played every christmas. But lets not talk about that film just now, since its on the list too.

The spacing between the films has been rather large which to me is very peculiar because its not the same generation of people that are enjoying each movie. The first one came out in 1995, the second in 1999 and the third in 2010! Actually now that I think about it, it makes sense that Andy would be going to college, since we've essentially been literally following him through time. Heck, he's around the same age as me!

Also, throughout each one I haven't actually noticed any improvement in the CGI but perhaps if I re-watch the old ones I'll be able to see it getting better. I guess the fact that this one was released in 3D is definitely a difference. I didn't watch it in 3D though, in case you're wondering.

How do we feel about 3D by the way? Does it add depth or is it just an annoying gimmick that gives you a headache? I reckon the idea is cool and will work someday, but the technology isn't quite advanced enough at this precise moment. The animated 3D films definitely look better than the live action 3D films, so I think I would've enjoyed watching this film in 3D, albeit mildly headache-inducing.

So the film...I think the premise that starts out the movie is pretty depressing to be honest. Andy is all grown up and isn't playing with his toys anymore. The toys set up a little scheme in order to trick Andy into playing with them, but it never happens. The toys must now meet their fate, either in the attic, donated to the day care centre or in the rubbish.

So what makes this movie the best of the series you ask? I think what people enjoy about it is the emotional rollercoaster. There are funny bits, sad bits and happy bits throughout (although these are less so when the person you're watching it with is totally unmoved - you know who you are!) There aren't many movies that would make me cry...and this one isn't included, but its close. Those toys were willing to accept death! That's some powerful stuff there.

Yeah, its cheesy but its a friggin' kids film! Come on! Give in to the child within! I loved this film.

#004 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

This thing sure is gonna have a whole lot of 3 hour long epics isn't it?

Well I gotta say these older movies are the ones that I don't look forward to watching. I guess I should try to ignore the outdatedness of it all and try to enjoy the movies for what they are.

So how do I feel about spaghetti westerns? I guess I haven't really seen many, and the ones I have seen, I've only been half watching. I think they're more for people who think cowboys and guns are cool and just love it when someone's hat gets blown off by a bullet or when Clint Eastwood acts aloof and slowly lights a cigar while someone points a gun at him. And you know what? It is kind of cool but I do enjoy movies that have plots and as far as I can tell this is what this movie lacks.

Basically from what I gathered its about 3 cowboys who like killing people and collecting gold. Two of them end up teaming up in an extremely untrusting partnership in order to find buried gold, while the third hunts them down and attempts to acquire the gold for himself.

People in these old western's are always shooting each other. Thats no way for society to build itself. I guess the quiet selfless ones who stay out of trouble are the ones that survive.

Ok so the concepts mildly cool but the story could've been told a lot faster. There isn't really much constantly engaging plot to keep an eye out for that justifies its length. This is why its perfect to have on in the background while doing the ironing. You can keep up with whats going on without having to pay close attention.

Also, the dubbing is funny. But dubbing always is.

#003 The Godfather Part II

If you've ever played Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic II this film represents a similar philosophy. The original is a great game, and contains many elements not typical of other platform games of the same era. There are 7 zones and a final boss at the end. The game is suitably easy to start off with, then gets harder as it goes.

Then, after having the original game be a giant success, the makers decided it would be a good idea to make a sequel. The game is essentially for people who have completed Sonic and want more. There are more levels, harder bosses and hey, while we're at it, let's chuck a new character in there! And so Tails was born. Nothing about the game is original, because it needs to be in keeping with the predecessor in order to gain approval.

Basically the Godfather II is like the Godfather one, but everything is bigger. The movie is longer, there is a higher death count, much more guns and less of a build up at the beginning. Michael Corleone's character, drunk with power, became even colder and basically ordered the execution of anyone that threatened him or generally made him unhappy.

The flashbacks to Vito Corleone's rise to power I found very interesting. It is typical in these types of movies for that type of character, one with a grim background, to take on such a powerful position. I guess a character that has had to make it on his own all his life would be better taking care of himself, eliminating enemies and any other threats. Plus there was the fun of being like: is that a young Robert De Niro? Nah...It couldn't be...wait, I think it is! no....is it?

The scene in the courtroom where Michael is making his defense speech is, in my opinion, quite shocking. He mentions, amongst other things, that he loves living in America and that he fought in a war. The judge responds saying that it was "very moving, especially the part about your love for this country". I mean Scottish people are patriotic but Americans LOVE their country. The fact that standing up and proclaiming your love for America would have any sway in a courtroom is insane. A lot of American pop culture is starting to make sense to me now. We've all heard it, its in the Simpsons, Friends, How I Met Your Mother (weird examples) but at some point or another, in a lot of movies and TV shows, there's that moment where someone's making a speech about how great the United States is, there's a fanfare playing in the background, and once they're finished, an audience full of people stand up and cheer. There's an American flag swaying in the background. We've all seen it. The friggin' Space Race! I never understood why a country would spend so much money just to copy what another country has already done. It didn't even seem like the Russians wanted to win, they were just going about normal scientific business, when the Americans decided to make it into a contest. It's like a massive round of "Anything you can do, I can do better".

Americans, we love you, but calm the heck down, drink some tea and stop eating so many hot dogs....Alright that last comment was unnecessary and the whole thing's a sweeping generalisation, but you get the point.

Wow this review did not go the way I expected it to. Perhaps I'll get back the Godfather II

Basically, its awesome. Perhaps a little more story would have kept me interested. I'm not really an "all action" kind of guy so the increased gun usage doesn't really appeal to me. I understand why its below the first movie on the list; I think the first definitely needs credit for getting the ball rolling, but I feel the second movie is better.

#002 The Godfather

I'm cheating a little bit here because although on my initial count of the top 250 I hadn't seen this, I immediately afterwards thought "Why haven't I seen that movie?" and watched it. This was about a month ago, but i still feel its clear enough in my head to warrant a review without having to watch it again (or rather having to sit though it again).

That last remark may have been negative but there's no doubt that I like this film. Its funny how with films like this, after watching it, you think "that was brilliant" and yet if someone mentions watching it again, even a good few months later, you're inclined to not have the patience for it. Perhaps its one of these movies that you're not meant to sit all the way through. Its meant to be on in the background on a rainy sunday afternoon, and you're watching it in between doing some tasks round the house. Or perhaps when you're feeling sick and making yourself a cup of tea.

I've got to admit, my first impression of this movie wasn't great. It's a relatively old movie (i.e I was definitely not alive when they made it) which for some reason immediately makes me assume that I'm going to have to make an extra effort to sit through it. I guess cinema has developed through time and what was now a novelty has become an art form. Movies nowadays are constantly trying to capture you're interest, so much so that old slow-moving movies are almost unbearable. Having said that, this film is far from slow moving. Sure, its long, but the whole thing takes place over the course of several years.

I think once you get past the start, it begins to keep you interested. Granted, for me it wasn't until about a third of the way through that this happened. I actually was so bored that I considered stopping it, but for the sake of the fact that it was considered a classic I struggled through, thinking that at least if I hated it I can complain after having watched the whole thing.

And I was definitely right to do so. The film got very interesting, especially as you witnessed Michael Corleone's character slowly changing. As his Brothers were killed and Father almost killed he became a much more blood-thirst-capable (thats a term!) man. Its clear even from a young age that he loves his family, which is essentially the whole point of these movies. If there's one thing you can learn from this movie it's that Italians, Michael Corleone especially, love their families.

Talk about fast moving plot. He goes to Italy to escape, meets this girl and next thing you know they're getting married. You never see them talking and getting to know each other, falling in love. All that stuff is skipped over. I guess since its such a "guys" movie that kind of makes sense, but you don't quite get a full sense of how when she dies, this is what pushes him over the edge.

Then he goes back to America and marries Kate, after having not seen her for - what - a couple of years? Again nowadays all these details would be explored a lot fuller I reckon. But I guess the audience just want to get to the guns and blood and stuff.

And so it happens, Michael Corleone, a completely changed man, originally wanting nothing to do with his family business, becomes cold and power hungry, killing off anyone that makes him unhappy. In contrast, Vito Corleone becomes peaceful in his old age, essentially calling a ceasefire between the Italian families, hoping that his son will take over in much the same manner. But we know this is not the case, since Michael Corleone at this point is not the man his Father thought he knew.

Anyway, you can tell I liked this Movie, even though it is tough to get through at some parts. I understand why this Movie has the reputation it does. Sometimes its difficult to know if you're meant to sympathise with Michael. I guess a mass murderer can't really be considered the hero, but then who is? The story is filled with people you are neither bad nor good, just average humans having to deal with extremely difficult situations.

#001 The Shawshank Redemption

I have seen this movie before. This is good because it implies that I'm not a total failure when it comes to movies. Having actually watched what is generally considered the best movie of all time says at least something about my movie knowledge.

Having said that, its not the movie i would have thought should be up there. Sure, it's brilliant, but it just isn't the first thing that pops into my head when someone says "all time great movies". The movie, in my head is on par with "The Green Mile" (placed at #074), which is another fantastic movie about a man who was wrongly convicted of murder. The main difference I suppose is that The Shawshank Redemption is more "real". Both state prisons and death row prisons exist of course, but the Green Mile contains an element of the supernatural, which I guess makes the story in the Shawshank Redemption slightly easier to empathise with.

I have seen it, but not recently, so I decided I'd re-watch it before posting this. I had forgotten that although the main character was technically Andy (Tim Robbins), the story was told from the perspective of Red (Morgan Freeman). This of course makes complete sense due to Morgan Freeman's excellent narrating voice. He plays a bit of a more shady character here than I'm used to. This is probably because, every time I think of Morgan Freeman, I just think of "God", from "Bruce Almighty", arguably the least shady character imaginable. But he plays the character brilliantly, so I'm not complaining.

I seem to remember it slightly differently. I thought he broke out slightly earlier in the film and he spent time trying to prove that he was innocent, but I'm probably confusing it with another film. Perhaps "The Fugitive".

My thoughts are...It's awesome...still. Prisons these days probably aren't run as violently and strictly as they were back then, but then again how would I know? I've never been. It certainly seemed accurate enough though, displaying that terrifying "mob-mentality" that I can only imagine is worst amongst prisoners, especially when treated disrespectfully.

My only problem is that I wasn't sure why the warden had Tommy shot. Something to do with him fearing that information would get out, but I'm not sure what. I'm also not sure how it wasn't found out that he did it sooner.

Perhaps I can use this blog as a method of asking questions about movies I don't undertand. While we're at it, why is it called "The Shawshank Redemption?"