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: