Beetlejuice (1988)

Why it's here:
To sample one of Tim Burton's first directorial efforts. I was also excited about the deeply talented cast.

Specs:
An hour and a half; rated PG*

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a strange film. I guess saying that Tim Burton directed it may have already made that apparent. Although it ultimately becomes a weird, scary-ish, supernatural 'comedy', the film starts out as an idyllic and romantic film of pleasant country life with our young couple played by Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin. But all that changes soon enough and we transition into a story about an unpleasant and stressed urban family and their resident ghosts. I won't say much more so I don't give away interesting plot twists.

My older son (age 15) loved the film! My younger (age 12) really wasn't sure what to make of it, but ultimately enjoyed it a lot. I think he found parts of it slightly more disturbing but was won over by the incredible creative talents that are found everywhere in this film.  If you watch with your family, just go in with few expectations and you will probably get a huge kick out of it.

* As with other PG films of this era, the boundaries are stretched with sexually inappropriate content including some erotic gestures, a visit to a brothel, comments from Beetlejuice of a sexual nature and abundant proof that Beetlejuice is "interested" in teenage Winona Ryder. However, much of this stuff is short-lived on screen and might be glossed over quickly by parents or not fully understood by kids. There are also some fairly grotesque or disturbing images related to showing how various afterlife characters died or related to our main characters attempting to scare the living. These are played for absurd comedy purposes and not for horror, so it is hard to say how cautious you might wish to be about them. If you have tender souls in your household, a pre-watch is probably warranted just to see. This would not be a typical PG rated film today.

Iconic image:

Roxanne (1987)

Why it's here:
I remembered this film as extremely charming and thought we could use the full exposure to Steve Martin's talents.

Specs:
Just over an hour and a half; rated PG

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
For a while, I felt that I was watching an almost perfect movie. The scenery is beyond gorgeous; the quaint little idyllic town forms a perfect setting for this clever re-imagining of the Cyrano de Bergerac story. And Steve Martin at the height of his talents is awesome to behold. But, as the film went on, the weaknesses began to show. Oddly, I'm not sure the movie actually got worse in the latter half so much as that I became more aware of its flaws as the mega impact of its initial charm subsided and as I acclimated to the heady power of Martin's performance. It is a touching and lovely film in many ways. But it is also seriously flawed.

Beyond Martin's hilarious and touching performance and the funny antics of the local fire department, you find a rather thin film. Sure the fun take on the Cyrano story is seductive, but it also feels a bit absurd if you look beyond the charm. Daryl Hannah falls for handsome Chris in an absurdly quick and superficial way, and, even more bizarrely, somehow fails to notice how different he is in real life from his letters. (Perhaps a better script could have made this seem plausible?) Also, I'm sorry, she's beautiful, but Hannah's acting chops are definitely minimal. Her loveliness just isn't quite enough for me to be OK with Steve Martin falling so deeply in love with her. Setting a classic love story in modern times presents difficulties in making outmoded romantic mores fit modern characters' motivations and seem reasonable. This film doesn't succeed with that ... in the way "Clueless", for instance, does.

Despite these shortcomings, I would still recommend the film as a satisfying cinematic experience overall. A caveat, though: I would recommend this film for families who are comfortable with with adult relationships. There are many scenes and a good deal of dialog that goes directly to characters wanting to have sex or having sex. The film is not visually explicit at all. (Though there is a scene at the very beginning where Daryl Hannah gets locked out of her house as her robe gets caught in the door and ends up outside naked. This scene is played for laughs and is not explicit). But the dialog definitely pushed boundaries of what I thought was appropriate several times.

Iconic image:

The Three Amigos (1986)

Why it's here:
The main impetus was to see Chevy Chase, who, though hilarious, does not happen to appear in many good family friendly films.  (Of course Steve Martin is a significant draw as well, but we already had "Roxanne" lined up for him).

Specs:
About an hour and a half; rated PG. Like many other movies from the era, this film is a bit more randy than you might expect in a PG rating.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.0 (We all gave it a 7!)

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film is certainly good and entertaining, but is by no means a great film. It follows the exploits of a trio of silent film cowboys who have fallen into disfavor with their production company and who travel to Mexico for what they think is an acting gig but turns out to be a real village's real need to defeat an evil bad guy (El Guapo) and his mob.

Cute set up! Very funny leads! So-so execution. Your kids -- or others with sophomoric taste -- will probably like the film, but you may be moderately disappointed. I am not sure exactly where this film loses its potential -- whether in the writing or the lack of overarching purpose -- but it is our lowest-rated film since the Aristocats from a decade earlier. Our comedians are spilling over with talent, but the film can't quite find its purpose. It seems to be primarily for kids, however, and as I mentioned above, there are many sexual themes, including El Guapo's kidnap of a lovely woman for whom he has distinctly sinister intentions.  All in all, its simple fluff, pretty funny and short, engaging entertainment, but my overall advice would be "don't really bother; watch Beetlejuice or Roxanne instead"

Iconic image:

Labyrinth (1986)

Why it's here:
We already know David Bowie as a singer with incredible presence; it seems right to check out his presence as an actor. He doesn't disappoint!

Specs:
Just over an hour and a half; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.7

More about the film and our reaction to it:
My 15 year old gave this a high compliment when he said, "this film surprised me. I really liked it." That's as good as I can expect from anyone these days and clicked with me, because I felt the same way.

Of course it is heavily steeped in 80s weird funk, but it is good. And I've now seen, time and again, that good movies can really transcend their date-trappings.  We noticed many transcendent themes in this film that make it a classic story of adventure and the comforts of home and stability. In fact, in large part, it seems to have borrowed plot and purpose from the Wizard of Oz. There are also numerous parallels to the story of Alice in Wonderland and even Harry Potter.  It is a classic fantasy tale told with high-level production values for its time.

The only human actors to have any appreciable screen time are Jennifer Connelly and David Bowie and they are both extremely solid. Connelly plays a teenager who wishes for (and then gets) more adventure. Bowie plays her evil nemesis -- the Goblin King -- i.e. the guy who's taken her baby brother. The Goblin King is shadowy, unknown and unknowable; he is mysterious and amorphous; he is compelling and repulsive. And Bowie is perfect in the role. He shows the screen presence we were expecting and the acting chops we were not. Connelly, too, is admirable here. She is understated, unflappable, direct and shows very little teenage primping and posing. Pretty amazing, really.

The animations, muppets and special effects are very enjoyable if you watch with the right attitude. Don't expect modern CGI, just high-end visual effects circa 1986. There is a lot of "technology" going on in the production and, at times feel it feels a bit cluttered. But it is all cool and in fun. Near the end when Jennifer Connelly, David Bowie and the baby are scrambling around on an Escher drawing come to life, the effect is extremely well done and very cool. Overall, the effects add greatly to the whimsical fantasy story and the feel of the film is etherial and entrancing.


Iconic image:

Back to the Future (1985)

Why it's here:
It slipped in at the last minute. We've seen the film before, so I wasn't going to include it in the festival, but right when our family was smack in the middle of the 1980s, the local art-house movie theater scheduled a showing of this film on the big screen. Unfortunately, I had to work!, but my family attended the screening and had a blast.

Specs:
2 hours; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.1

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Well... I wasn't there. So I guess that means I don't have to write about it...? I can just tell you this: my family came home jazzed up and gabbing -- both unusual occurrences.  They already knew that loved the film; but what they really loved was seeing it on the big screen. Any opportunity to see a great film from the past in the theater should really be seized.

Iconic image:

The Gods Must be Crazy (1984)

Why it's here:
I remember watching this quirky strange movie back in the day and being absolutely charmed by it. Though there was little I remembered about the film -- save the amazing performance by native Bushman actor, N!xau -- I knew it was good and wanted to share it with the kids.

Specs:
1 hour 45 minutes; PG
(A note about the date; I saw that the US release date was 1984, so we watched it 'in' 1984 in our festival. However, I learned later that the film was actually made in 1980. Oh well!)

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.8

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This awesome film is charming, sweet, funny, and quick-paced. It unfolds in a unique way, starting off like a documentary telling the story of a tribal community of Bushmen in Africa, contrasted with the busy life in the nearby city. However, the film takes a clever shift when men in a helicopter drop a coke bottle and life for the tribe becomes unstable. Nixau goes to return this unwanted 'gift' to the gods and hilarity ensues as we follow him on his adventures.  Other parallel adventures, involving bumbling revolutionaries, a school teacher, and an earnest but nervous field scientist start to intersect and play out much like old silent short films do. Everything is absurd; everything is played for laughs; and there is a kernel of humanity and meaning at the core. Its a very well made movie that we thoroughly enjoyed.

As far as the rating goes -- PG has me seriously exhausted. It is such a huge and confusing category. We saw the PG rated Dead Poet's Society recently (our review coming soon) and it features boys ogling a magazine image, which alone wouldn't be so troubling, but the nude picture itself is shown full on camera for several moments of on screen time. And, don't even get me started on horrific, scary and violent images including melting faces, in Indiana Jones, also PG.  Yet, here Gods Must be Crazy is a film that plays innocently in the vein of a silent movie but gets a "PG" rating because of brief cultural and non-sexual nudity and slapstick shenanigans. This movie deserves a PG no doubt, but to my way of thinking is extremely appropriate to larger audiences in a way that either of the other two I just mentioned clearly are not.  My constant advice for any film from 1970 - 1990 is don't trust the MPAA rating! Look deeper into what a film contains or doesn't contain.

If you do watch this film, the most important thing will be to have an open mind and few expectations, because it is likely different than anything you've seen before. It is its own fun adventure; but there is no reason that modern American audiences, including families, cannot hop along for the ride with the right attitude.

Iconic image:

Gandhi (1982)

Why it's here:
I couldn't wait to have us view this highly acclaimed film, which, for some reason, my husband and I never saw back in the day.

Specs:
Over 3 hours; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I am ashamed at how little I knew about Mohandes Ghandhi. Having now viewed this film, I am proud to have prevented my own children growing up quite as ignorant. This was an amazing movie. I am assuming it is basically historically accurate (because as I have already confessed, I would not know otherwise) and it is one of the most inspiring and profoundly interesting history lessons we have ever had.

In sweep, scope and grandeur it reminded us of Lawrence of Arabia. In fact, like other epic films, its power is similarly in the cinematography, the incredible story, and the great drama of a particular moment in time (here, the rise of Indian nationalism and independence). It is like other epically powerful films also, in its huge, deep and talented cast. But it is unlike any other I can think of in that it has a main character of nearly perfect humanity who is simply a wonder to behold. Gandhi is a historical figure who is beyond compelling -- who is truly admirable and inspiring.

And Ben Kingsley's performance in the title role is flawless. It moved me. I think he moved us all. (By the way, the film received our highest rating since 1953's Roman Holiday and is our fifth highest rated film in the whole festival.)

For my part, I have not been able to stop thinking about the film since we watched it last week. I viewed it again with director commentary and then again without. I'm not quite sure who I am more in love with or find more inspirational right now, Kingsley or Gandhi.

While all of the above might make you think I am about to highly recommend this movie, you'd be wrong.

I recommend Gandhi very highly to adults. And I recommend it with caveats galore for children.  First off, parents should know that the film is very long - well over 3 hours; complete with intermission (something we haven't had in a film since the 1960s). We watched it over the course of two nights.  Still, it is not just the length, but the very dense story that should make parents think twice before showing. Know your kids and their maturity levels and their endurance before attempting this one.

Its primary audience certainly is not kids. I would imagine that even most teens might be bored out of their minds with this film. Unfortunately, if not bored, it is likely your kids will be horrified. Some of the events depicted here are grotesquely cruel, including the British massacre of a peaceful assembly of families, a scene of workers quietly advancing to be bludgeoned by troops, and a riot scene where parents with children are dragged from cars and many are killed, and other such horrors. As I write this, I'm wondering why the heck I enjoyed this film and how I was OK showing it, but, these scenes just felt (profoundly sad) but honest and true - not gratuitous. In fact, they were really the whole point. The idea that peaceful protest is stinkin' hard for the people doing it, is a point well made here when confronted with the violence they bore.

Gandhi has an amazing speech in the film when he is talking a group of the downtrodden in South Africa into his vision of protest. He says "We will not strike a blow, but we will receive them. ... They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. They will then have my dead body -- not my obedience."

Iconic Image

On Golden Pond (1981)

Why its here:
The driving reason for its inclusion was the chance to see Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn again, this marking our 5th and 4th film by them, respectively. Toss in a 2nd Jane Fonda appearance and a heart-warming tale of family stress and love and how can you go wrong?

Specs:
1 hour 45 minutes; rated PG* (see parent cautions below)

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Henry Fonda plays Norman, and Katherine Hepburn plays Ethel, a married couple that vacations on Golden Pond in the summers. Norman is celebrating a birthday and their daughter Chelsea (Jane Fonda) comes to visit, along with her soon to be husband Bill and his teen son, Billy. Its a small cast and a small set-up. That's it right there. Not surprisingly, it is based on a play. The story is highly character-driven and very appealing.  The cinematic vision is quiet -- shot in muted colors, with a slow methodic and peaceful tone.

But the acting is energetic and mesmerizing. Our family's favorite parts of this film centered on Henry Fonda's incredible performance (and the great dry humor of his character Norman) and Norman's relationship with his step-grandchild, Billy, a slightly bitter but basically compliant teen.  (Layer on top of this, my own profound appreciation for the locale and gorgeous scenery and Katherine Hepburn's loveliness and skill, and I was in love with the picture).

While the film's primary audience is grown ups, it should be a hit with any kids that are old enough, or troubled enough, to recognize that family relationships and aging can be hard. Still there are several cautions for parents:

* First of all, language is much harsher than the PG rating would suggest (or than a modern PG would contain). "God damn" and "son of a bitch" and similar words make many appearances in the film; "bullshit" is highlighted in one comic scene.  There is also some very frank discussion of sex, as Bill asks Norman for permission to sleep in the same room as Chelsea. The dialog goes on for several minutes making it clear that they are sharing the room in order to have sex and Henry Fonda crudely mentions the room in which he first violated her mother. Its a bit jarring.There are a couple of places in the film where we are meant to feel fearful (primarily for Norman's well-being) and it is clear he is in a declining state. This is unsettling for adults and kids, though it ends without tragedy. Its main themes are aging and debilitation/fear, dysfunctional connections with adult children, and quirky blended family -- as they say, "thematic elements."  Still, we recommend it very highly for the right families. It is a beautiful film.

Iconic image:

Chariots of Fire (1981)

Why it's here:
Chariots of Fire won the Academy Award for best picture and a great deal of fanfare in 1981.  It is one of few entirely family-friendly (unobjectionable) and PG-rated films to win for best picture and, though I'd never seen it before, I thought we'd love it.

Specs:
Two hours; rated PG (though I honestly can't think of a thing that would have kept this from a G rating).

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a hard film to review. On the one hand, it is beautiful - to look at and to listen to. The cinematography, period details, direction, acting and story are clearly all masterful, and yet, I'm sorry, but it is rather dull and definitely hard to follow.

Owing to the English and Scottish accents, we missed about half of the dialog. Even if we had heard the dialog, I'm not sure how much of the plot intricacies any of us were really following. For this reason, I'm not sure I'll even attempt a plot synopsis here. A short summary is that it follows the lives and training of several young British track athletes and their Olympic competition. It is about life and perseverance and strength. But, mainly, I think it is "about" gorgeous camera work. It feels like an "art" film more than mainstream cinema. Maybe this is why it received so much attention at the time. It must have felt extremely special and unusual back then.

Although it is a sports film, it doesn't follow the typical pattern of sports films. It is very subtle and character-driven and the competition scenes are minimal. Still, it is uplifting and inspiring and has a strong positive message.

I am quite sure that upon subsequent viewings additional layers of meaning and clarity would be apparent, but I can't say I'm dying to pop it back in the dvd player.

It is an example of a film that you can see is exceptional and well-made, yet we didn't fall in love with it. It happens.  We don't particularly recommend it for families, only because it is unlikely that it would be a hit for those who aren't adults and/or fascinated with running, antisemitism or the 1920s. But if you are a more mature audience, then please do watch - the iconic power of the opening scene and the soundtrack will surely get to you.

Iconic Image:

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Why it's here:
This, like Jaws, is a film I always meant for my kids to see eventually. I was waiting for them to be old enough that showing them the melting faces at the end would be something I could stomach!

Specs:
2 hours; rated PG. Though, please note this would be properly rated PG-13, had such a rating existed then, with its very graphic and disturbing sequences and, in fact, was one of the prime reasons for the birth of the PG-13 rating.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film was the highly touted collaboration by two of the era's greats - a story from the creative genius of George Lucas coupled with the directorial genius of Steven Spielberg. How could it miss? The answer: it couldn't and it didn't.  This is an extremely iconic and classic film that probably no one needs me to summarize plot details on.

What makes it good ranges from the star power of Harrison Ford, to the fresh appealing talent of Karen Allen and the excellent acting of the supporting players, to the breathtaking score by John Williams and the still-profound special effects. Once again, skilled hands all around and lots and lots of money do stand the test of movie-making time.

There is no doubt that this movie will continue to be enjoyed for generations and that it will probably continue to be thrilling. Parents should certainly treat it as they would any other PG-13 movie - it is full of violence and disturbing images and ideas. But if you pass that threshold and decide to view, then get ready to be entertained.

Iconic image:

Breaking Away (1979)

Why it's here:
Though this is not a super well-known film, I read a number of very positive reviews and comments; plus, a sports theme is always a winner in our house.

Specs:
About an hour and a half. Rated PG

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Breaking Away has some very common elements found in film: coming of age, parent-child conflict, young people feeling trapped in their small town, clash of classes, as well as several less common ones, like small-town Indiana landscapes, a young man who is obsessed with bicycle racing, and a calm non-exploitative tone that feels relaxed and true.

In fact that calm tone might be part of the reason the film isn't better known. The build up was slow and there were points in the beginning when I thought I'd made a mistake and wanted to turn it off. By halfway through I realized I was falling in love with the film and that my family was all engrossed.

The key pieces that made it come together were the strong script/dialog and phenomenal acting. This is fairly light fare; teenage angst and sports do not often come together in a way that has this much truth and heart but so little melodrama, but that's what this film managed to do surprisingly well.  I never felt jerked around, nor did the story ever feel unnecessarily sentimental.

Modern audiences will enjoy seeing Dennis Quaid and Daniel Stern as young men. The film also stars Dennis Christopher as the lead character who is obsessed with both bicycling and Italy. These 3, plus Jackie Earle Haley, play recent high school graduates who are part of the working class culture in Bloomington Indiana, home of Indiana University. They are trying to figure out what to do with their lives and experiencing mixed emotions as they see all the upper class college kids enjoying a very different experience. These roles are so well inhabited by these young actors, you truly feel their insecurity, blustering and childlike awkwardness as they strive to find their place.

The acting was excellent throughout. We especially loved the lead character's parents: funny dad who appeared distant and grumbling, disappointed in his son, but had a deep love for him that became clear by the end and warm, free-spirited instinctual mother who demonstrated a highly appealingbond with her son.

Shot on site in Bloomington, Indiana, the look of the film is beautiful and quintessentially 70s. It should be required viewing for anyone who wants to make a movie set in this time period.

Parent notes are minimal. Although the movie starts out feeling much like any other 'young people stuck in a small town coming of age flick' and I wondered if we were about to get more than we bargained for. But really there was very little racy dialog. The film is almost completely appropriate for families, with the exception being a comment in the beginning as the boys are cruising on the college campus and one comments about college girls tits. There is also a fight scene which is not very intense or graphic by modern standards and a couple of scenes in the quarry swimming hole that feel a bit tense.

Iconic shot:

Heaven Can Wait (1978)

Why it's here:
I saw this one in the theater many years ago and thought it would be a good fit for our family. I was also glad to have the opportunity to introduce the kids to Warren Beatty, who was a big 70s era film star.

Specs:
An hour and a half; rated PG

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
A very odd little premise to this movie. Clever but odd. In less-talented hands, it might have been a big mess, but instead the film is believable, sincere, and winning. Buck Henry and Warren Beatty directed as well as starred and are supported by a hugely talented cast.  I hadn't realized how star-studded this one was, until I started typing the big names into the labels box. (See below this post).

So, the odd and clever plot goes like this: Warren Beatty plays a football player (Joe Pendleton) who is training with his team and excited about his chance to be in the super bowl this season. Heading home from practice, Pendleton hops on his bike and enters a tunnel where he is struck in a collision. Unfortunately, the angel who is sent down to claim him when he dies, pulls Pendleton away too soon, in order to save him some pain; but it turns out that this was a big goof, because Pendleton wasn't supposed to die. The angels then have to find another body for Pendleton to occupy on earth and it is settled that Mr. Farnsworth will do. Farnsworth is a millionaire who has just been killed by his wife and her lover/Farnsworth's aide. When Pendleton occupies the millionaire's body, and he springs back to life, hilarious comedy ensues from Dyan Cannon and Charles Grodin (who play the conniving pair.)

Under Pendleton's spirit, Farnsworth undergoes major changes in how he runs his business, treats others, and mostly, in his lifestyle - as he begins training to play football and even manages to convince Pendleton's old trainer of who is really is. Due to Beatty's charm and strong performance, none of this feels trite or cheesy, but earnest and charming.

This is a really great movie for some Warren Beatty appreciation. He is in top form here -- warm, likable, athletic and smart, and this film a perfect vehicle for those talents.  The film is a nigh blend of quirky drama and absurd humor.

Iconic image:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Why its here:
Its 1977 and we've already seen Star Wars a million times, so what to include? Close Encounters of course.

Specs:
Well over 2 hours; rated PG.

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
It's interesting to note that this film came out in the same year as Star Wars. In the mid-70s, two major directors started to shape the film industry with their vision of the big-budget summer blockbuster: George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. In our family we were vastly familiar with the Star Wars films -- the brainchild(ren) of Lucas, demonstrating his stunning creative mind and sci-fi vision. We were less familiar with Spielberg's work. I have come to believe that Spielberg has a much more sophisticated understanding and a more adult perspective on film, and is clearly the better director.

That said, this movie (Close Encounters) is certainly less suited to families and kids than Star Wars. This is a film for grown ups. And a darn good one at that. As with other films from this era, the action moves slowly and intricately; it is psychological, not just adventure-laden.  It is the kind of film that modern kids will fall asleep to (like one of my children did). But that doesn't mean it isn't good, just that you want to know what you're getting in to before showing it to your family.

It tells the story of a small town in which several of the residents have near-alien abductions and start to become obsessed -- in a way they cannot fathom and driving those around them crazy -- with getting even closer to those aliens. In particular, Richard Dreyfuss is on duty as a lineman when an alien spaceship approaches the area. He loses interest in all else (including wife, children and job) and spends his time inexplicably imagining a mountain form. A neighbor woman whose son is the target of the aliens is also drawn to experience more of the aliens. Ultimately, these two, plus a government team doing some cover-up, converge on the locale where the alien ship appears again (Devils Tower in Wyoming).

This is a rather odd plot to try and describe! I realize I am not giving much of the flavor of the film with my synopsis.  But, as in the case of many other films, it is not really the plot that wins you over, it is the subtle details of the storytelling. And that's when you really appreciate the genius of Spielberg. He makes this film phenomenal by capturing your interest and emotion and connection to these characters and a fantastic musical score. He sucks you in.  By the end, we were all spellbound (even the kid who had fallen asleep early on), and felt transported to a possible reality out there somewhere in Wyoming.

Iconic Image:

Bad News Bears (1976)

Why it's here:
This is another one I saw in the theater back in the day and thought would be perfect for us.

Specs:
About an hour and a half; rated PG.  (Though the language is unexpectedly salty for a PG movie).

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
In this film, Walter Matthau plays a grumbly old former ballplayer, turned pool maintenance guy who is talked into coaching a rag-tag little league team. The kids encompass a range of personality quirks, but very little actual sports talent.  They are helped out by coach's ex-girlfriend's daughter (Tatum O'Neil) who (one can see) in addition to having a famous father, deserved this starring role for her personality and acting chops. The team eventually learns to play ball and work together, but not without first enduring some tension and hurt feelings.

Its a good movie for a lot of reasons. Walter Matthau alone is worth the price of admission. The interplay among the kids as they fight and protect each other and work through various emotional entanglements is the bread and butter of the experience. It's also worth watching to note how unfettered and free (comparatively) kids' lives used to be: piling into cars without seat belts, swearing, hanging out with their coach scrubbing out pools, moving about in the world without apparent supervision. No matter what your take on whether that style of life or our current one is better, this film surely gives an eye-opening cultural perspective on the not too distant past.

Iconic image:

Rocky (1976)

Why it's here:
We had to watch Rocky.

Specs:
2 hours; rated PG

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Rocky (much like Planet of the Apes or Jaws) was a very successful film, spawning a huge franchise which continued to make money by issuing numerous sequels of continually decreasing quality over the years. That franchise unfortunately had the effect of diluting the good name of the original (in each of these cases), and leaving a negative impression in the eyes of many people around my age who remember these films as a joke due to the piles of silly sequels.  But this is unfortunate indeed.

It should not be forgotten that the original Rocky (like Planet of the Apes or Jaws), was successful for a very key reason. It was fantastic! Rocky is an awesome film, full of heart and sweetness and great human drama. It should not be missed.

Rocky took the world by storm because it was so unexpected. Sylvester Stallone was an unknown; the film was made on the cheap, shot on location in Philadelphia and utilizing every production shortcut possible. It took years for Stallone to get his story made -- to get anyone to listen.  It was a good story; but it is Stallone's particular stamp and vision that turned this idea into iconic cinema.

Rocky is a tough thuggish man with a sweet side, who wishes to woo the very shy woman who lives in his neighborhood and works at the pet store. For unexpected reasons, he gets a chance to fight the National heavyweight champion. The film tells the story of this downtrodden guy turned athlete in a way that focuses on many quaint details of character rather than brut testosterone.  His relationship with his trainer, with the folks in his small sphere of influence, and his sweet romance make this a uniquely appealing story. The overcoming of obstacles never feels cliche, only exhilarating. In fact, the climax of the film comes not from the actual boxing battle at the end but from that iconic moment in his training when he ascends the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

The is a great film for teens and preteens because (with a few off-color remarks) it is reasonably tame with respect to language, sexuality and violence. Overall it is much more youth appropriate than most modern PG to PG-13 films that deal with a sports theme.

Iconic image:

All the President's Men (1976)

Why its here:
I was very interested in having my kids see a Dustin Hoffman film, and this one had the duel benefit of being Robert Redford's brainchild and dealing with the Watergate investigation. It is interesting to note that the film was originally rated R for its strong language. The producers appealed that rating and it was dropped to a PG. (There was no PG-13 at the time). The story is thematic and very intelligent and, yes, there is a fair amount of very strong language, but this film is so good that I would never encourage people to stay away for this reason.

Specs:
Over 2 hours; rated PG (originally R for language)

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
A winner! this gets a 8.5 and is the first film to break into our top 10 list since 1963's Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film held us spellbound. It is an incredible slice of history -- not just because of the Watergate events, but because of its stunning exploration into what it meant to do investigative journalism in the pre-computer era.

The surprise here is that Nixon is not in this film at all. The resignation of key figures in Nixon's administration hardly enters the film. In most ways, anyone who watches expecting to learn more about Watergate will be disappointed. The film is really not so much about Watergate, as about the slow painstaking research that went in to building a piece of journalism that (ultimately) resulted in the downfall of Nixon's presidency. If that doesn't sound like compelling filmmaking, well, then, I'd probably agree with you! as would most other reasonable people. But, the thing is, it IS.

The story here is all about its bits and pieces of story -- layers of denial, and intrigue, and character, choices, ethics, persistence and, of course, politics. It is beyond fascinating. Of course it could never have been half so good were it not for the skill of its director, the stellar performances of Redford and Hoffman, and the profoundly capable supporting cast. I recently read Roger Ebert's review of the film and loved his comment, "[w]ho'd have thought you could build tension with scenes where Bernstein walks over to Woodward's desk and listens in on the extension phone? But you can."

What makes this film incredible for modern audiences, in a way its contemporary ones could not have fathomed, is that the work of Woodward and Bernstein has now gone the way of the dinosaurs. This is not what the press does anymore, nor how they do it. The film managed to capture a moment of time at exactly the perfect moment. It preserved, at its apex, the perfection of a certain craft. And it is worth watching for that reason alone.

Iconic Image:

Jaws (1975)

Why it's here:
Well, in a way it was a no-brainer: one of the most iconic films of all time, the first of the huge summer blockbusters, and the film that single-handedly ushered in the modern era of film. On the other hand, make no mistake: this film is TERRIFYING. I had to think hard about whether to include it for our viewing. I might not have done so two years ago when we started the festival, with the kids a bit younger. But now, well, the balance was clearly in favor of its inclusion. And I am so glad we did.

Specs:
2 hours. The film is rated PG because there was no PG-13 at the time. I am rather inclined to believe it deserved an R.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Jaws is not a perfect movie -- there is the touch of the absurd about it, especially at the end of the film when the shark becomes implausibly vengeful in its actions. But it is very close to perfect. And this is coming from a woman who does not love scary films -- wait..., does not even really like scary films. The movie is just so stinkin' well made, that one cannot help appreciating it.

If you were to show this film to a modern audience, chances are they would be scared out of their britches. And that may be, in large measure, because they didn't seriously believe a movie 40 years old could still pack such a punch. Even though I warned my boys this was going to be unpleasant, horrible and intense, I don't really think they believed me. That is, until 5 minutes in when a woman skinny-dipping in the ocean at night was bitten in half.  This is the stuff phobias are made of. I told the kids "that's what's called being 'put on notice' about what the film is going to contain." But its not the gore that makes Jaws lingeringly great, it is the talent of a great director with a strong story behind him. The suspense that Spielberg creates is incredible.

The power of this film is multilayered. It is built through mood, and music, and perspective, and back story, and fantastic actors playing enjoyable characters. You can't help but get sucked in. (Figuratively PLEASE). Oh, and we just have to mention Robert Shaw, who we had just seen in The Sting. Amazing that he managed to age 20 years for this role in just 2. He was incredible; and we could hardly believe it was the same actor.

Parent concerns are many. Please don't watch this film figuring it is tame just because it is old. The movie is very graphic and disturbing.  My 12 year old did have shark nightmares after it (though he doesn't regret watching). It's genre should be considered "horror" because that is is basic purpose -- to scare the crud out of you. There is no question in my mind that it would be PG-13 today -- in fact, I'm not sure why it didn't get an R rating back then. We loved it; but it is not for the faint of heart.

Iconic Image:

Apple Dumpling Gang (1975)

Why it's here:
I don't know how much of a "classic" this one really is, but truth is it was hard to fill the 1970s with titles that are both "great" and "suitable for families." I ended up casting a wide net to catch some family friendly movies and this was one of them.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours; rated G

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Everyone in the house enjoyed the film and I was pleasantly surprised by how well-made and charming it was. The film is set in the old West and opens with three children traveling on a train (we don't remember why) to the western town where they are adopted by this single guy (we don't remember why; maybe he was their uncle). The kids are a nuisance to him, and wander off on their own where they find a gold mine. Of course, then, bad people want to steal it from them. There are "real" bad guys and "silly" bad guys as well as good guys (consisting of the kids, their uncle and his love interest). It all ends well, though we don't remember exactly how.

As much as we don't remember about the plot, we definitely remember that we enjoyed this movie and found it very funny.  Which I guess goes to show that good film is not always about plot! This film is a pleasant tale of adventure and family love and an even better tale of the hilarious comedy of Tim Conway and Don Knotts.

Iconic image:

The Sting (1973)

Why it's here:
To see Paul Newman and Robert Redford in an iconic buddy picture. The theme of con men in the 30s was sure to be a winner as well.

Specs:
2 hours; rated PG -- see parent cautions near the end of this review

Our family's average rating on a scale of (1-10):
8.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a fantastic film. The story - on which I don't want to give too many plot details away - is very clever and well thought out. There are twists and turns that keep you guessing about who to trust as good-natured con men work together to take down a crime boss/banker who murdered their friend. Your attention will be riveted until the very end.

The period details are beyond compare and lead to an almost perfect envisionment of the 1930s era. The score, with which everyone is familiar -- (The Entertainer enjoyed a huge comeback in popularity at the time of the film's release) -- features ragtime classics that are not actually from the era, but a good 20 years prior; still the score was inspired as it suits the overall elements of the picture and adds enormously to its charm. Newman and Redford are such an engaging team, and the supporting cast is exceptional. Particularly notable are Robert Shaw as the bad dude the con men target and Harold Gould as Kid Twist, another of the con men.

I would highly recommend it, but with one big caveat: there is a scene in a strip club that is bound to be objectionable for many, if not most, parents, including myself.  I knew about the scene and pre-watched to decide what to do. Ultimately, I thought the film too good to be missed and just talked about the scene first.  It occurs in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, when Redford's character has come in to some money and goes to the club to see his girlfriend. She wears nothing but pasties and a g-string and dances provocatively in front of a group of rowdy men. The scene goes on for long enough that there is no chance of it being missed or going over anyone's head. She also walks up and talks to Redford for a bit before covering up. Anyone considering watching this film with kids should be aware of it and make up their own minds. Note that the scene could be fast forwarded without missing out on any plot details that matter.

Also, along these lines, later in the film, it becomes clear that Newman lives in a house of ill repute and that his girlfriend is the madam. The good news with all of this, is that the facts of the situation are played with enough subtlety that it probably will go over most kids' heads. As long as I'm giving the rundown of this stuff, I may as well mention that Redford is also seen going to a female character's apartment late at night and is still there in the morning. Honestly, I don't remember their tryst very much, so I don't think it was very provocative.  (Also, by the way, the overall level of tension and violence is not bad or over the top given that criminal activity is referred to throughout. The mood is generally pretty light and there is almost no gore; through there is the murder in the beginning of the film that sets off the whole chain of plot events and another fairly shocking shooting later in the film.).

Iconic image:

Aristocats (1970)

Why it's here:
Are you kidding? After Sometimes a Great Notion, we clearly needed something animated and innocuous! Actually, I remembered watching this one as a child and being charmed by it. I figured the boys would too.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours, animated; rated G

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is charming and sweet, just as I'd remembered it. The story is of a rich woman who has no family, but a "devoted" butler, a cat and the cat's 3 kittens. The woman writes a will leaving her entire estate to the cat, whereupon the butler becomes jealous. He kidnaps the cats and disposes of them out in the country. The cats manage to get away from him and connect with a warm-hearted stray cat and become a team, traveling together.  They go on amazing adventures and sing "Everybody Wants to Be a Cat," and do other sweet charming funny things. Its great.

High recommendations for family from us all!

Iconic image:

Sometimes a Great Notion (1970)

Why it's here:
Years ago we had a backpacking buddy who used to reference this film's line "wake it and shake it you Stampers" whenever he'd wake us up to get hiking on cold early mornings. I was always curious about the film and thought we'd include it.  Somehow I had the idea in my head that this would be like Grizzly Adams but with a heartwarming family tale behind it. I could not have been more wrong!

Specs:
Almost 2 hours. Rated PG. (This is not a "typical" PG film by modern standards).

Our average rating on a scale of 1-10:
5.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film gets some dubious distinctions in our fest. It is our 4th LOWEST rated film overall. In fact this is our lowest rated film since 1935's Becky Sharp, and one of only 6 in our festival that received less than a "6" average score. Perhaps it is not fair to say that we hated the film or that the film was bad, but better to say that the film was wholly unsuited to our purposes. I strongly encourage you and your family to skip this one.

The film is rated the equivalent of PG, which just showcases the shortcoming of ratings in trying to convey audience appropriateness. It is shot in a slow, plodding, 70s era style. The natural locations were gorgeous, I guess, but the film never felt lovely or attractive, because the whole thing was shrouded in a dark complicated tone of family disharmony. There was a constant sense of foreboding that terrible things would be happening. And it was the tone that made the film very hard to watch. In fact, many terrible things do happen in this picture.

The story is about a proud and defiant logging family headed by Henry Fonda and with Paul Newman as the eldest son. They stand up in principle against a logging union that is strongarming them into not cutting wood in order to raise prices. However, the Stampers do what they see is right, and do not cower under threat of violence. As good as that might sound in terms of providing positive role models, the film is not meant to be a positive story of standing up for what's right, so much as a depressing exposition of a disfunctional family's ambiguous principals. The film explores adult themes of divorce and blended family along with much younger second wife having a quasi-incestuous relationship with one of the sons. It also involves two horrific logging accidents and a very grotesque (in my opinion) display at the end that is played for humor.

(Welcome to the 1970s!  I should probably have known/noticed that this was an adaptation of a Ken Kesey novel and was unlikely to be a good choice. ha. I guess maybe you have to be from the 70s - as our backpacking partner was - to enjoy this type of stuff.)

Let me be clear: I'm not saying the film was poorly made or bad, but rather that it was not at all what I meant to pick for our enjoyable family festival. If you do want to watch this one with kids, I'd suggest that you know your kids and their tolerances and I'd still suggest a pre-watch just to make sure you know what you're in for.

Truth is, we realized early on that this film was not a good fit for us and didn't really "watch" it. After about the first 30 minutes or so, we started skipping on fast forward and pulling out various scenes to watch. We sort of skip-watched the whole thing.

Iconic image:

My Side of the Mountain (1969)

Why it's here:
We were familiar with this classic and often recommended 1959 novel and were interested to see its (only?) adaptation

Specs:
About and hour and a half. Rated G

Our family's rating (on a scale from 1- 10):
A solid 7.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We were all curious how well they managed to adapt the story given that there are very few characters and the whole movie centers on a boy's running off to the wilderness. The solitude was dealt with by creating a raccoon character with whom the boy (Sam) could convey thoughts and experiences.

Our impression of this movie was mixed, and similar to the way we felt about Born Free. It is good and solid, but really not amazing or spectacular. It feels very much like a 60s-era nature film and reminds me of shows like Wild Kingdom I used to see on TV.  We give it a solid recommendation for families who wish for a beautiful and wholesome movie to enjoy together.

Iconic image:

Funny Girl (1968)

Why it's here:
For the chance to see and hear Barbara Streisand, who shouldn't be overlooked as a major film star. She won an Oscar for her role for Funny Girl - which was also her first screen role.

Specs:
2 1/2 hours; color
Set in the 1920s

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.0. In fact, every one of us rated it an "8."

More about the film and our reaction to it:
You expect teen and preteen boys to enjoy certain kinds of movies. Abbot and Costello pictures, the On the Road series, the Maltese Falcon....  But, when they love a movie like Funny Girl -- detailing the life of stage star Fanny Brice -- that simply speaks volumes to the QUALITY of a motion picture. It has to be a great film if it won over people who are so far out of its target demographic. And it was. [In fact, my husband, who was working in his study and had not planned to watch, came in to see it; it hooked him from the next room].

Barbara Streisand and her incredible voice and performance are the undisputed anchor for this movie. She is so watchable. Everything else -- from the plot, to supporting performances, cinematography -- is  a support to her charm, comedy and talent. We also enjoyed seeing Omar Sherif again, this time in a very different role from where we saw him last (Lawrence of Arabia).

The film is long, but, again, it speaks to how well made and solid it is that we didn't mind. We watched it over two nights and were all anxious to sit back down and enjoy the second half.

It is clear that we are now deep into the modern-era 60s! We've seen, in this festival, many films dealing with marriage and divorce, but this one felt like a first, in that the marriage ended (sorry spoilers!) for reasons that are distinctly depressing: people who love each other, where neither is at fault, cannot make a go of it for reasons of pride and introspection. Though set in the 20s, the film is stewed in its (present) time; It feels like a 60s flick. Parents should be aware of some very sexy bikini style costumes on full display in an early musical number! Those costumes were certainly not period appropriate.

Iconic image:

Planet of the Apes (1968)

Why its here:
My brother, again. Its lucky he told us to watch it though, because I had the impression, shaped by years of inferior sequels that have diluted the franchise, that this movie would be cheesy and dumb. The amazing thing is, the original Planet of the Apes is a FANTASTIC film.

Specs:
Almost 2 hours. Color.

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This movie is still compelling and powerful and only just slightly affected by 60-s era cheesiness. As everyone knows, it tells the story of a small group of astronauts who have been traveling in space and are about to return home. Their space ship crash lands, while they are in stasis and when they come to, and disembark, they find themselves in a strange place. It is a good half hour into the film before you first realize (along with our astronauts) that they have landed on a planet that is ruled by apes. And what's more, on this planet humans are present, but as primitive beings that can not speak and have no power.

Because everyone is familiar with the franchise, the retelling of these plot details may have lost some of the chilling effect it would have had in 1968. "Yes, we get it; how very odd for the tables to be turned in this way," you're thinking. "don't bore me."  But you'd be wrong.  Because this movie is so very well made, the unfolding of this troubling story is very disturbing and the realization of what these poor astronauts have come upon is highly unsettling.

As amazing as the plot themes still manage to be, the production itself is half the reason to watch.  The acting is incredible. The special effects (including the simian costumes/makeup) are impressive. The scenery and cinematography are evocative and gorgeous; and the musical score stirring.

The ending (which I wont reveal) is still a mind-blowing experience if you can manage to watch the film without first having it spoiled - which I would strongly recommend you attempt.

The movie is tense and very unsettling, rendering it perfect for the tween to grownup set. I wouldn't recommend it for those much younger as the power of the story will be lost on them while the details that make it incredible are unlikely to be those best appreciated by kids.

Iconic Image:

The Love Bug (1968)

Why its here:
I remembered having watched the Love Bug as a child. But its turns out I was wrong. I'd never seen this film -- but probably one of the 1970s sequels. haha. In any case, I thought the boys would get a kick out of the VW Bug in its starring role.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours. Color.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
6.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Solid, enjoyable film. Totally appropriate for family viewing and basically unobjectionable all around.  Kind of like Flubber or the Elvis film we saw, it is good to have a familiarity with these well-known films that are part of the American cultural experience.

The story weaves together a down-on-his-luck car racer and his funny roommate, with a villainous car dealer and his spunky employee, a sweet and stubborn Volkswagon and a gorgeous cross country motor race in California. (As I write this, its starting to remind me of The Great Race, too. Between the two of them, even though we rated The Great Race a bit higher and it is probably better cinema, families are much more likely to enjoy this one.)

Iconic Image: