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: