2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Why its here:
An iconic film of such stature that it just had to be included in the festival.

Specs:
2 1/2 hours. Color.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
We had a definite split of opinion on this film in our family. Two of us rated it in the "9s", and two of us gave it a "6"! Our average was a 7.63.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This has to be the film with the biggest split of opinion our family has seen in the festival.  My younger son and I were blown away -- mesmerized by every bit and dying to see it again in order to figure it out better. Truth is, I'll admit that, though we loved it, we didn't actually understand it. Its just that we were OK with that. For us, it was an all-consuming visual and auditory experience that we couldn't resist. [It is not surprising that he and I are also the family members with the greatest affinity for silent films. This movie is not heavy on plot, action or dialog, but rather, like silent movies, is more about images and introspection.]

On the other hand, while my husband and older son appreciated parts of the film, they could not love it. They were irritated by its lack of sense and only drawn in during certain parts -- like some of the climactic scenes involving Hal and other escapades out in space. We have heard no end of the following dialog: "Open the pod bay doors, Hal." "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" in our house since we watched it. There is no question that at times, they were spellbound, but overall, they were frustrated with the ending and the lack of plot.

Aside from the split of opinion, I think we could all agree that it was clearly an effective bringing-to-life of the director's vision and was extraordinarily well-made. For example: I had not seen the film before. We put in the dvd and sat back to watch. About 15 minutes in to it, all of a sudden it dawned on me that, having been made in the 1960s, the ape-men I was seeing were simply extraordinary. They couldn't have been actual non-human primates (and obviously weren't cg), yet they looked and moved so realistically, I could hardly believe I was watching human actors made up as ape-men. Yet that's what they were. I learned later that Kubrick had hired an expert mime to be in charge of the choreography/movements of these scenes and the primitive humans were all played by mimes. Details of care and deep thought come through in every moment of the picture.

Depending on what you and your family value and enjoy, those details and that vision may be enough to blow you all away, or you may be bored out of your minds, or even hate it. So while we aren't going to particularly recommend 2001 for families, I do suggest you consider it!

Iconic Image:

Barefoot in the Park (1967)

Why its here:
Robert Redford and Jane Fonda are enough of a reason. But add a funny Neil Simon play, and this one is not to be missed.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours. Color.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
8.0. We all gave it an "8"!

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We were all highly charmed by this film about the challenges of a young married couple. Their personalities are quite different, but they are passionate about each other. It feels very much like a play turned movie (which, of course, it is), with most of the action taking place in the newlywed's apartment. Although the story has depth and heart, it also has enough silly comedy moments that it appealed to everyone. In particular, the mother/mother-in-law and the telephone installation/repair guy gave us a lot to laugh at, is did the recurring joke about the many flights of stairs needing to be scaled to reach the apartment.

Both lead actors here show why they deserved stardom. They are not just beautiful to look at, but overflowing with charisma and interest. Their performances, and an excellent supporting cast, really make this film great.

Iconic Image:

Batman (1966)

Why its here:
My brother made me do it : )

Specs:
1 1/2 hours. Color

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
6.4

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I'm not ashamed to admit it: I liked this film. There, I said it.  In fact, our collective rating would have been much higher had my husband not given it a "5". To enjoy this film, you have to accept it on its own terms - which are campy 60s hipster fluff. If you can do that, then you will probably like the movie too. (My husband, obviously, could not.)

Please do NOT attempt to show this film to modern kids without first disabusing them of any notion that it will be 'like' modern superhero movies (i.e. Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man). It couldn't be more different. It is intentionally cheesy.  Flat and slightly absurd, with silly dialog and special effects, it is hard to describe to someone who never saw the 60s TV show.  Having the right expectations is half the battle.

The film is an exploded episode of the show, with all your favorite villains making an appearance. Robin's iconic "holy [fill in the blank], Batman" makes several appearances: my favorite, "Holy heartbreak, Batman."

Is is groundbreaking meaningful cinema? No. Is it a silly and fun treat? Absolutely!

Iconic Image:

Born Free (1966)

Why it's here:
I remembered it fondly and wanted to share with my family.

Spec:
Hour and a half; color

Our family's rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
7.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I remember being really blown away by this movie as a child. But now, after many many years, it felt rather weaker than I remembered -- strained on plot and a little too long. Its central message was incredible, but felt buried under other layers of plot that didn't always make sense. But still, this is a GOOD film. The cinematography and locations are still mind-blowing and the lion "actors" were incredible. For these reasons the film grabs your attention and holds on to it even when the plot diversions get to be a bit much.

Just like the underlying story, the actors are fine but not great. In fact, everything about the picture feels solid. We all responded to it in about the same way and its one of those rare films where we all gave it the same rating -- a "7." Chances are that your family, too, would enjoy it.

Iconic Image:

The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966)

Why its here:
My sister-in-law added it to our list. It is not a movie I would have chosen; but it was the least I could do for her :)   so we watched!

Specs:
Hour and a half; color

Our family's rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
7.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I was stunned that this movie was as good as it was. I had very low expectations. haha.  In terms of plot, this film is very much like a Scooby Doo story in live action -- but with a bit more heart. Don Knotts is fantastic. He is very charming, funny and highly sympathetic as a doormat who wants to be a reporter and somehow gets swept in to a "spend the night in a haunted house" type of dare.

Even beyond the indisputable comedy chops of Knotts, this movie can hold its own. It is sweet and clever and well-acted - though simple.

It is also very appropriate for families and likely to be enjoyed by those who don't spend a lot of time in classic cinema. Youngest viewers will probably be scared, though. The chills value may be light by today's standards, but it is still scary and creepy. Make sure you have some blankets to hide under!

Iconic Image:

The Great Race (1965)

Why its here:
A chance to see Tony Curtis (who is fabulous here) and Natalie Wood (who we hadn't seen since she was a child in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir). This was supposed to be a fantastic epic comedy.

Specs:
Color. Nearly 3 hours.

Our family's rating on a scale of 1-10:
6.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
It may be a great race, but its only a good movie.  The Great Race is hampered in part by the fact that we've seen this movie, twice, before. Perhaps wishing to ride the success of Around the World in 80 Days and Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, this film canvases much the same metaphoric and literal territory, in glorious technicolor and at over 3 hours in length.  Problem is, the others did it better. There was plenty of time for my mind to wander and I found myself getting bored - a rare occurrence indeed during our festival.

The performances are strong and the film generally very well-made and entertaining, but the plot lacked focus and well, just dragged on. What is it with these 60s epic films?! Lawrence of Arabia, Its a Mad ... World, My Fair Lady and now The Great Race have all clocked in at 3 hours + and included intermissions. We are ready for something short!

Iconic Image:

Viva Las Vegas (1964)

Why its here:
Seriously? Of course I wanted to include an Elvis film. The only decision was which? Viva Las Vegas is generally regarded as one of his best and has the bonus that we got to see Ann Margrock, of Flintstones fame (that's Ann-Margret to the rest of you.)

Specs:
Short! Not even an hour and a half and color. We could not get a hold of this movie anywhere and were going to have to rent it from Amazon (yikes!), when luckily TCM happened to play the flick on a Sunday afternoon that fit right in to our plans. Worked out great.

Our family's rating on a scale of 1-10:
6.75

More abut the film and our reaction to it.
Personally, I feel a little sheepish giving this film a "7" since it is not a strong film, really. It's absurd and far-fetched, weak on plot and cheap-ish on effects, BUT, it is a very entertaining and enjoyable film. Its simply fun to watch and that makes up for all its shortfalls.  A movie like this is wonderful because it knows just what it is and doesn't try to be anything bigger.

I am not a huge Elvis fan, but I've always found it so cool that he was both a major performing artist and film actor. OK, maybe he wasn't a great actor, but he made 31 films! and that's nothing to sneeze at. Elvis is nothing if not entertaining and charming and Ann-Margret is the same. Together they carry this senseless film and make us root for them.

Now for a brief rundown on the silliness. Elvis plays a rock & roll race car driver who has come to Vegas to compete in the Grand Prix. He meets his rival driver in the first few moments, clashes with him, gets angry and insulted then proceeds to hang out with him genially for the rest of the film. He also meets Ann-Margaret when her car breaks down, but she gets away before he learns who she is and, assuming she's a show girl, he spends the whole night (along with his enemy) searching for her by going to all the clubs. He finds her the next day at the pool of the hotel he's staying at, teaching swimming lessons. She doesn't like him and pushes him in pool. This causes his big wad of cash, that he was going to use to buy his race car's motor, to float away, so he gets a job at the hotel. One of our favorite bits is their first date, where these two broke kids both have a day off from the hotel, so they go dancing at the university, then motorcycle riding, then fly around in a helicopter, then go waterskiing. Those things don't cost money, right?

She alternately hates him and loves him -- the hate seemingly connected to her fear that he will die in a car crash, yet still finds room in her heart to introduce him to her dad (William Demerest who is very charming here) who plays a pivotal role by the end in helping Elvis compete (in the race and with his daughter). Somewhere in the midst of all of this, Elvis and Ann-Margaret also compete head on in a talent competition (where they both win ridiculous prizes) and have the opportunity to perform some dozen or so song numbers. I lost count. Given that this has been out for about 50 years, I won't consider this as a spoiler if I tell you that at the end Elvis wins the race! and then the director decided the movie was over so cut to a scene of the leads getting married. And the film ends. Boom.

Its not great cinema; it's Elvis cinema. And you just have to go with it.

Iconic image:

My Fair Lady (1964)

Why it's here:
We'd already seen all the more family oriented big musicals from this era, so we branched out.

Specs:
almost 3 hours, color

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The movie is of course fantastic! But, it is not as well-suited to family viewing as, say, Mary Poppins or the Sound of Music. The ideas are more complex and there are no kids or youth-centered points of view. It is strong on the subtle brilliance of the underlying ideas, which makes it a tremendous film, but may not become your kids most beloved of musicals. Luckily there is plenty of humor and fantastic performances which mitigate against the tremendous length of the film.

We loved the first part, but I do think spirits were dragging by the end and we were all glad to see the credits roll.

Much is made of the backstory of the making of this film... for instance how Audrey Hepburn was chosen for the role rather than have Julie Andrews reprise her theatrical performance, ... of how Hepburn, though she trained heavily, was not allowed to sing her own songs, ... of how Cary Grant was offered the lead role and said "not only will I not do it, I will not even go to see the film if Rex Harrison is not cast," ... of how Harrison was trepidatious of Hepburn's acting chops but came to feel that she was the best co-star he'd ever had.  The film and its making are just so ... interesting for some reason. It seems the film has an iconic status almost outside of its value as cinema. I guess then to be culturally literate, you need to see the film :)

Iconic Image:

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)

Why it's here:
Because we love comedy and, since this is the 60s, we were looking for anything to lighten the mood.

Specs:
Epic comedy - 3 hours long; color

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a funny, funny, funny, funny movie. Still. Yes, it's from 1963, but it is hilarious and an extremely well-made film that, though dated, holds up very well. In fact, it feels like you are actually watching the birth of modern comedy take place before you. This film is at the roots of Monty Python and Airplane! and much that came after.

If this gives you any indication of how much we liked the movie: the running time is 3 hours. We watched it twice this week.

The barrage of great icons of classic comedy in the film is nothing short of breathtaking and the humor ranges from silly, to irony, to absurd, to slapstick. But there's more -- The film also goes beyond the sidesplitting fun with a real plot and what seems like a true/honest purpose. I think this accounts for why the film still feels solid and relevant 50 years later.  It starts with a speeding car on a mountain road, and then several strangers who come upon the driver who lies dying after having crashed. The dying man discloses the location of a huge sum of money and a chase to find it is on -- complete with police secretly following. The film is simple - but simply well-made too.

So many scenes from this film have clearly inspired Hollywood movie making to this day, and I found myself constantly thinking: "I've seen that before". From the car chases, the money raining down from on high, the slow fleeing on a bicycle, the deadpan control tower guy trying to talk hapless accidental pilots down, the police operations-center scenes, the hardened cop on the line between good and bad, the guys all in traction at the end, and on and on and on this film includes many moments that have become quintessential in comedy.

All in all this has to be one of our most loved films of the festival so far and we highly recommend it for families!

Iconic Image:

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (1962)

Why it's here: 
Highly recommended by a friend who brought his son and some snacks over to watch with us! We certainly can't go wrong with that.

Specs: 
2 hours; black and white

Our rating on a scale of 1 - 10: 
8.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film did not disappoint. Remarkable for the onscreen pairing of James Stewart and John Wayne whose talents suit each other remarkably well, this film is yet another of John Ford's successful Westerns and probably one of the best Westerns we've seen. It kept reminding me of the other wonderfully different Westerns in our festival: Stagecoach and High Noon. All three share a similar calm, intellectual story - rather than a high energy "shoot em up" approach.

The film may be best suited for tweens and up -- not because it is gory or violent -- but because it might seem dull or slow for those who don't get in to the underlying personal and political tensions. There are a few graphic and unsettling moments including, I guess I don't give anything away here that the title hasn't already suggested -- a man shot in a gun battle. The interesting piece is not so much that this man was shot but by whom and why and we don't really learn that until we put it all together at the end.

We would recommend the film highly.


Iconic Image:

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Why it's here:
Well, I'd, of course, heard of the film. But never seen it. In researching for the festival, this title came up again and again as one of the best films of all time. When I learned that Obi Wan Kenobi (Alec Guiness) was featured in the movie, I couldn't resist.  (The boys found him entirely recognizable by his voice, if not so much by his look, as this was 15 years prior to Star Wars.)

Specs:
Nearly 4 hours! Shot gorgeously in color.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
8.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
What an incredible, remarkable, film. Wow. Just wow. We can't say we loved it. We loved LOVED the first half. Its hard to imagine better cinema ever than the first half of the movie.  For us, the second half felt long and less compelling. More of the psychological and political depth and drama emerges in ernest in the second half making it less suitable for children -- unless they are the more mature type, readily engaged with that type of material.  There are several unsettling scenes of violence - mostly implied or not graphically shown. Other disturbing ideas will go over younger kids heads.

Our main character, Lawrence, as well as many (most) of the others -- and, come to think of it, the civilizations they represent -- is ambiguous: siting neither on the moral right or hated wrong, but somewhere in between. Although Lawrence's character flaws were foreshadowed in the beginning of the film, it was easy to forget them as we joined him on his amazing journey into the Arab world.  The film allows you to just plunge viscerally into that world. The cinematography is so gorgeous that "visceral" is the only word for it. You truly experience this land on an unimaginable level. My husband and I agreed that we have never seen such a beautifully shot film, ever. It was stunning.

We watched over two, well, really three nights. The first we were spellbound and in love with this film. We stopped just before intermission. The second night just didn't click for us in the same way. We put the film on and watched for another hour or so then found we were all just drifting and losing interest. So we put off the last half hour until the following night. Did I mention this film runs well over 3 1/2 hours long? Still, I wouldn't let that discourage anyone from seeing it who is interested. The film is glorious.

My hesitancy to recommend it for families lies in the fact that I don't think most modern kids would get into it the way mine did. If your kids are good with more serious themes in film and with disturbing and ambiguous truths, then go for it.  But its probably best to ease into classic film first before taking on this one.

Iconic image:

The Absentminded Professor (1961)

Why its here:
For some simple light-hearted fun.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours, black and white

Our family's rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This may not be a major moment in cinematic history, but its good. Really enjoyable and simple fun. We'd definitely recommend for family viewing.

This is the story of flubber. And some bad guys. And a good (absentminded) guy who is also a scientist, and of course his shaggy dog... whoops, that's a different movie. Only there is a dog here too. And he is in fact shaggy. But most of all, it's the story of a flying Model-T Ford and really, that's enough.  Don't expect anything more. ... And set your high modern production standards down at the door as you pick up your suspension of disbelief and just sit back and enjoy this fun movie.

As a side note, it was great to see Nancy Olson again, who we'd enjoyed so much in Sunset Blvd., in a very different kind of film.

Iconic Image:

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Why it's here:
The double pull of a courtroom drama and an education-related theme. Had to pick it.

Specs:
2 hours

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
6.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We knew the famed Scopes "monkey" trial was the inspiration for the film, but we learned later that the film is actually a very accurate portrayal of the real-life events: the clash of famous lawyers, the climatic "placing the prosecuting attorney on the stand as the defense witness" move, the testimony from the bible, the odd twist of verdict and many other features of the film that screamed like cinematic licence to us, were actually real.

One of the pieces of the film that was so frustrating to me as a lawyer is that legal issues never seemed to come out - it all just felt like grandstanding and bluster. A good courtroom drama is hard to pull off. It has to be dramatic; but it should also be rooted in well-reasoned legal issues that carry a certain truth to them. This one didn't cut muster. The idea of a court trial dealing with a teacher who stands up and teaches according to his principals is such a good one for kids, but, truly, we wouldn't recommend this film broadly for families, simply because it does feel very dated and overblown.

We all agreed though that Spencer Tracy is a fabulous actor and we were glad to have another chance to see him in a courtroom drama. Unfortunately though, the last one was Adam's Rib (1949) and I can't say we liked that film any better.

Iconic image:

North by Northwest (1959)

Why it's here:
Another chance to see Cary Grant, here in one of his best known roles, and to show my kids the beyond-iconic moment in cinema when a plane chases down Cary Grant.

Specs:
Over 2 hours, color

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
What struck us most about the film is that it seemed to be recreating "Notorious", yet just wasn't quite as good. Most people to write about this film think it is Hitch's very best work. I'm not a Hitchcock expert, so while I appreciate certain touches in this film enormously and thought that overall it was a really good movie, we weren't blown away.

Even though Cary Grant is the coolest, most appealing character that ever lived on screen, he's starting to seem a bit old for the dashing romantic lead and the age difference between him and Eva Marie Saint is beginning to be too much. His acting is superb and as always he creates the embodiment of something you want to live for and aspire to. He is a golden star - the best that ever lived.

This film contains scenes that would rank among are some of the most incredible in our festival (such as the aforementioned crop duster chasing down Grant, and Grant driving drunk along a windy road, the characters cavorting all over Mt. Rushmore, the scene in the UN where someone gets stabbed with a thrown knife). These elements are profoundly memorable, but somehow, for us, the film as a whole was not. 

Iconic shot:

Auntie Mame (1958)

Why it's here:
Recommended to us by a friend.

Specs:
Almost 2 1/2 hours; color

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Auntie Mame was a strange movie. By the end we all really liked it. While we were watching, we couldn't quite figure out what to think of it. It kept seeming like it had come to a close and several times during its run, I thought it had ended. But the story was simply told in chapters or vignettes that each told a piece. It covers an astonishing scope of time in the lives of these people, in good depth. It did feel long, though. And we began to feel that the ending was dragging on. This could be a function of the fact that we had already been tricked into thinkng the film was about to end several times before it actually did.

Throughout the whole is an astonishingly compelling performance by Rosalind Russel (who we had not seen since "His Girl Friday"). She has created a character that is burned in our brains - avant gaurd, lovably out of touch, caring and kind but totally free-spirited, she is the gem of the film.

The movie is at times silly, sad, absurd, frustrating, playful - but always compelling.

On a second viewing, I would probably appreciate it more, knowing how it is set up, what it does and where it's taking me

Iconic image:

Gunfight at the OK Corral (1957)

Why it's here:
The story has been done so many times, but this is the Classic. We were drawn by the strong local interest since the historical events underlying this tale took place near where we live. In addition, the film was shot in part at Old Tucson. We had to check it out.

Specs:
2 hours, color. Available on dvd

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
6.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Although the film was good, and certainly watchable entertainment, it was not fabulous. The best part was the exposure to the performances of Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster, both major stars who gave top performances here. But the movie dragged on a bit, especially with subplots that pulled away from the main story. Maybe this is because, though clearly one of the most famous tales from the old West, the real Tombstone shoot-out was truly just not that dramatic.  This probably also explains why dramatizations always ratchet up the facts and intensity of the story. Quite a bit.


After watching the film, we went and toured the actual site of the gunfight and learned that the whole battle was short and well contained within a small corral.

The film is full of 50s-era cliches and camp that are charming and enjoyable if you are in the right mind -- for instance, the song "Boot Hill" which has been running through our brains in a continuous loop since. ("Boot Hill, Boot Hill, so cold, so still...") The Boot Hill cemetery in real life is a fascinating and nicely kept monument to the time of the wild West. The Tombstone courthouse holds wonderful exhibits -- including many historical artifacts, displays and period details. It is both architecturally and historically a fantastic place to see. And, the preserved gallows standing in the walled-in courthouse yard still reeks with unpleasant energy.

The actual history of the town is so compelling and as this film marked the impetus for our trip there, and as a well known, quintessential piece of American cultural history, we are grateful to it.
The shot below is so well-framed that I believe it is mandatory to recreate in every subsequent Hollywood release of the story :)

Iconic image:

12 Angry Men (1957)

Why its here:
It had been many years since I've seen this film, but I was pretty sure it would be perfect for our festival. I was right.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours, black and white. Available on dvd

Our rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I can think of few films in our entire festival that had us riveted, literally, on the edge of our seats riveted throughout like 12 Angry Men did.  That statement is all the more remarkable given that the entire film (save the first and last minutes) took place in a single setting -- two, if you count the bathroom of the jury room.  What a remarkable acheivement in drama and performance. Simply incredible.

And those two elements (the actors and their performances) are in fact almost the whole enchilada here. The story itself - from a play about jury deliberations in what appears to be an open and shut murder case is an excellent one. There is almost no action, rather, through the jurors' discussion of the pieces of evidence, the story slowly unfolds along with revelations, interpretations and the disclosure of our jurors' prejudices, strengths of charaacter, backgrounds and vulnerabilities.  However good the story is, the film would be lost without excellent interpretative performances by its entire cast. Henry Fonda is again a standout. I have come to believe that he is one of the best actors of all time. His performances in everything we've seen him in (Grapes of Wrath, Mister Roberts, even The Lady Eve) have never failed to move me.

This is simply a perfect film for the pre-teen/teen set and gives wondrous introduction into the legal system as well as a grand study into character and duty.  Not to be missed.

Iconic image:

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

Why it's here:
Actually we'd seen the Jackie Chan version and loved it. It made sense to view the original film from the 50s.

Specs:
Nearly 3 hours, color; available on dvd

Our family's average rating:
7.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
As I sit here writing this, the rest of my family is watching the Jackie Chan version (again). They wanted to compare the two. While both are star-studded with cameos and give a wonderful feel of world travel and adventure and contain roughly equivalent overall entertainment value, one thing's for sure: Chan's version is much more hilarious... and juvenile.

We all really liked them both. But the 1956 one, is much more like a grand adventure story, that is also funny, than the rip roaring silliness of the more recent one. The 1956 film takes on the story with a bit more intention and seriousness. Though still light and fun, it feels like "real" cinema. In fact, it feels very much like cinema for grown-ups: an impressive and lengthy production with incredible world travel and sweeping production values.

Shot on location all around the globe, the film usually inspires gushing about the wide screen format employed -- which seems to be the technological equivalent of The Hobbit's recent foray into superfast frames per second -- that is, on a nerdo-scale of excitability. But, since all the movies we watch just basically just fill up my tv set, the insanely-wide screen dimension had little effect on us. What we did love was the feeling of a book brought to life with great lushness and attention to detail.

The kids were thrilled and we were all surprise to see Buster Keaton pop up in a cameo as a train conductor. He was, as always, fabulous. There were so many celebrity cameos, its hard to know which to point out. Some of the more impressive (to me), besides Keaton, were Marlene Dietrich, Frank Sinatra, Red Skelton, and Peter Lorre, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

This was great fun - but families should be warned it is long and probably not the best choice for those who are new to classic cinema.

Iconic image:

The Ten Commandments (1956)

Why it's here:
To sample something by the great director Cecil B De Mille.

Specs:
Over 3 1/2 hours long! (we watched over two nights). Color and available on dvd.
Set in biblical times; at the time of Moses.

Our family's average rating:
8.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Wow. Just wow. This has so much enormity and spectacle value that it is breathtaking to watch.

I can see why Cecil B. DeMille was such an icon. He knew how to make a BIG movie. He so clearly understood what details are important. He has assembled a magnificent and deep cast. His special effects are excellent and, even by today's standards, don't look cheesy but seamless and impressive. His locations (some in Egypt, some in California) are gorgeous and evocative.

Everything feels sweeping, grand and important -- including his choice to film this story.  He follows the life of Moses from the time he was set upon the Nile in a basket, to his status as an Egyptian leader, to his calling from God to lead his people out of slavery. The story is an incredible one and this an amazingly solid adaptation of it that stands up well today.

Iconic image:

Mister Roberts (1955)

Why it's here:
Henry Fonda, William Powell, James Cagney (who we've seen and enjoyed separately) and a chance to introduce the kids to Jack Lemmon. What an impressive cast!

Specs:
About 2 hours, black and white. Available on dvd.

Our family's average rating:
8.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
My family's reaction to the film was that this wasn't exactly full-on comedy, nor was it really war drama, but it was a perfect mix of the two. We laughed a lot throughout, but the film is much deeper than it is silly. We gained incredible insight into the emotions and conditions of men on a boat in WWII.

The film resonated a good deal with us because the boys' grandfather had been at Pearl Harbor and must have lived the experiences of the navy in the era as portrayed in this film.

The performances by all the leads are incredible. As always, we adore William Powell. He is my favorite character here as a dignified, clever, but basically warm-hearted doctor. James Cagney is wonderful as the horrible (and still hilarious) captain Morton. Henry Fonda has to be at the very top of the list of all the actors we've seen during our festival in terms of sheer acting skill. We saw this film weeks ago, and as I sit writing this, I still feel attached to the man he played here. Fonda makes Mr. Roberts incredibly real.

Finally, this was our introduction to Jack Lemmon and a great one at that. Lemmon plays a slightly inept, but extremely energetic and randy young man.  A parent's note: a few of the scenes, especially those involving Lemmon's character, are a bit risque in theme. One scene in the beginning has the sailors using binoculars to watch when they discover that a nurses barracks and shower is viewable from where they are anchored. Although that scene may make the film objectionable for some families, the sexuality doesn't get any more involved than that. There is a fair amount of suggestive innuendo about Lemmon's pursuit of a particular nurse, but overall, this makes a small part of the film, is not too lascivious, and simply adds to the light humor.

The film is exceptionally well-made and does a magnificent job of setting a mood and creating memorable characters. We absolutely loved it.

Iconic image:

On The Waterfront (1954)

Why it's here:
Marlon Brando. That's enough of a reason, right?

Specs:
Not quite 2 hours long, black and white. It is available on dvd which we found at our library.

Our family's average rating:
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I really struggled with whether to show this one to my kids. In fact, I pre-viewed it just to see. The content is quite intense and unsettling, but the movie is powerful and exceptionally good, so I gave them some warnings and we watched.

To start with the reason for having included this film in our festival: Marlon Brando is an amazing actor. We were all very moved by his performance. Brando, as everyone knows, is famous as a proponent of a new style of acting - the method - that started to take hold in the 50s. I don't really know (or care) that much about acting theory, but I will say that his style of performance was clearly different -- earthier, more emotional, earnest, and real -- than the classic Hollywood style we have become used to. It takes the viewer by force in this film. Two instances that make my heart still thump include the iconic "I could have been a contender" scene with his brother in the car and a simple moment when, walking through a park with Eva Marie Saint, he stoops to pick up a glove she's dropped, fingers it absentmindedly, then puts it on his own hand. These moments are incredible and beautiful, as is his whole performance.

Now, for the ugly, because the film depicts something very ugly -- the mob-controlled union on the dockyards in New Jersey. The film (like High Noon) is all about characters making hard choices and is steeped in allegory about the ongoing red scare and its effect on Hollywood. You don't have to care about symbolic meaning to appreciate the film.

Parents should be aware that, though gritty and upsetting in theme, there is not a great deal of violence or gore actually shown on screen; plenty is implied though. Several deaths do occur (just offscreen) and they are fairly grusome (someone is thrown from a roof, another has a heavy load of bottles dropped on him, another is shot and then suspended from a hook). Though the deaths may not be seen directly, their aftermath is. All of this would elevate the film to a PG-13. Though my 11 year old watched and really liked the film, I would not generally recommend it for 11 year olds. It is probably best suited to the 13+ set.  ...and that's not just because of the violence, but for the fact that most kids under 13+ probably wouldn't be that interested in the grown-up themes of unions, and mob power, what it means to rat people out and when its OK to do that.

One of the best parts of the film was the awesome character and performance of the waterfront priest played by Karl Malden. He really helped you feel like you had an anchor in all the tension going on and was occassionally funny and uniformly charming. Likewise, Eva Marie Saint was an awesome grounding force in the film that I was very grateful for.

We recommend this film highly for slightly older or more mature kids and teens.

Iconic image: