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: