The Hunt for Red October (1990)

Why its here:
Great movie choice if you want a military action thriller that is exciting and full of plot twists, yet still really pretty family friendly.

Specs:
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:

To  give a flavor of what to expect, it might be enough to say that this film is an adaptation of a bestselling Tom Clancy novel.  If you need to know more than that, then I'll also share that in addition to dramatic characters, politically-driven action, and more than a few plot twists, the film has a highly talented ensemble cast, powerful cold-war era tensions, and very realistic details including a setting almost entirely inside a submarine. If this is still not convincing you to watch the flick, then chances are this is not the right movie for you.

But for the rest of us -- and probably that represents a large chunk of humanity -- this film can't miss.

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:

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:

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:

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

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

Specs:
2 1/2 hours. Color.

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

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

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

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

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

Iconic Image:

Born Free (1966)

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

Spec:
Hour and a half; color

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

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

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

Iconic Image:

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

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

Specs:
Nearly 4 hours! Shot gorgeously in color.

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

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

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

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

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

Iconic image:

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

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

Specs:
Nearly 3 hours, color; available on dvd

Our family's average rating:
7.63

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

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

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

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

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

Iconic image:

African Queen (1951)

Why it's here:
We knew Katherine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart separately (and younger) from other films and were anxious to see them together in this highly acclaimed one.

Specs:
1 hour and 45 minutes; color. We watched on dvd from the library
Set in 1914

Our family's average rating:
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This movie is amazing. And so unexpected. I mean, of course, I'd heard of it and figured it had to be good, but it's not the type of film that succeeds in the way you are expecting it to. You really just don't see it sneaking up on you until you are already deep within its grasp.

So, the film starts out with a middle-aged missionary and his sister (Katherine Hepburn) in Africa -- then enters an ugly, disheveled Humphrey Bogart looking worse than you can imagine. The missionary dies (not really a spoiler since it happens right away in the film) and Hepburn and Bogart are left travelling together for the rest of the film. Getting to know each other as they float down a river may not sound like compelling film making. But it is so stunningly well made and well acted that it's all that is needed to carry the film.

We were all impressed. And that is really saying something when a teenage and preteen boy 50 years later can watch what is basically as much a romance between two middle-aged people as it is an adventure film, and LOVE it. Their story is so believably done that it still engages. But, when I stopped to think about it, our whole family taking to this movie makes total sense because it is much like It Happened One Night. It's a simple, well-written, well-acted, believable, fantasy adventure between two people and the countryside.

Iconic image:

Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

Why it's here:
We have seen this movie many times before and we love it. Because we watched the 1922 Douglas Fairbanks version in the festival, it seemed only right to nod to Errol Flynn (again) as well.

Specs:
About an hour and a half, gorgeous Technicolor. Available on dvd.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
8.33

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The Robin Hood story is such a compelling one and has to be one of the most frequently adapted tales ever. I haven't seen every single adaptation out there, but can still say with certainty that Errol Flynn's version is the best. :)

The level of intensity and violence is checked with a good deal of humor and joyous bounding through the forests, so that it feels good to watch. The audience is left in no doubt that times are difficult and people are facing harsh conditions (both political and financial). These themes aren't glossed over, but the overwhelming impression is that of good-hearted people doing the right thing and overcoming adversity while still retaining their good cheer. For these reasons, it makes great family viewing, especially for families who want to experience Robin Hood but aren't going to go the PG-13 (i.e. the Russel Crow, British TV series, or Kevin Costner) route to the story.

Even for those who do enjoy the more graphic modern versions of Robin Hood, there is still a great deal to love about this early one. For starters, this is one of the best early examples of a  Technicolor film. It is absolutely breathtaking to enjoy in vibrant color. Then, there is the great energy and joy with which the Robin Hood story is told. There is a deep talented cast (including Alan Hale, Claude Rains, Olivia de Havilland, and Basil Rathbone). But probably best of all, is Errol Flynn's exuberant star-turn as Robin. Flynn is a compelling presence. He makes Robin cheeky, smart, confident and exciting.

There is a reason this is a classic - it is an extremely well made film.

Iconic shot:

Wings (1927)

Why it's here:
I had heard of this film, but didn't chose it for our festival, for reasons I don't remember. But long after we'd passed 1927, Wings kept coming up whenever we were talking with people about our festival. At least 3 different people suggested we include it; so even though we're in the mid-40s, we took a little detour back in time to 1927 to see the film.

In addition to it's simply being a wonderful film, Wings is notable for having won for best picture in the very first Academy Awards ever! (And, until this year's The Artist, long remained the only silent film to have done so).

Specs:
Almost 2 and 1/2 hours, black and white, silent
Set in World War I

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Wow. It is hard to start the review with anything but "wow!" If you think you don't like silent film, you probably have not seen Wings. This movie, set in WWI and filmed a decade later, is riveting and action-packed, featuring two young pilots in their authentic biplanes doing amazing maneuvers. This picture had a 2 million dollar budget -- I have no idea what that would be in 2012 dollars, but I'm sure its a lot. The film has amazing biplane stunts, buildings being blown up, several plane crashes, and very cool special effects (such as drawn-in bubbles for champaign, yellow gun blasts, and trails of fire and smoke that had to have been added post-production.) The production is stunning for its time.

Buddy Rogers plays Jack and Richard Arlen, David, two young men who train to pilot biplanes in WWI. The amazing thing is that both actors took flying lessons in order to star in the film so they could be filmed in the air! The director, himself a young veteran (William Wellman)
filmed on location at an air force base in Texas, using actual troops as extras. The formation-flying scenes relied on military pilots and the stunt flying (including spins, dives and crashes) took advantage of the very best stunt pilots of the day. The film's attention to detail pays off with a very authentic feel that is absolutely transporting.

The plot is rather thin, turning on the relationship that is at first strained and ultimately very close  of two young pilots. They both think they love the same woman - and although that issue is billed as the main tension of the film, it really isn't that interesting of a plot point. Their relationship with each other and the character played by Clara Bow are what the film rests on.

Bow, who has top billing because she was by far the film's biggest star, reportedly said that she didn't like her role because the movie was a "man's" picture and she was just the whipped cream on top. Its true that the film is a man's picture and views like an early Top Gun, but I disagree with Bow about her character's relevance. She is essential to the film being as good as it is. Without her, it would have rested just on the themes of male friendship and battle and would have gotten even more bogged down in long dog fights. But Bow is sparkly, fresh, earnest and funny. She serves as the important counterpoint to all the intensity. She may not have been the centerpiece, but without her, the movie would have suffered. She was certainly one of our favorite parts. Another very cool thing is the brief appearance of Gary Cooper in a small part. It is clear that he has star power. His energy and charisma are great. And his style of acting is quite different from everyone else's -- you can see why he had no trouble making the transition to sound.

Speaking of sound, though this is a silent film, the dvd we watched had an incredible sound track. The music is very fitting and the sound effects are perfect. It enhanced the experience considerably and, it is another of those silents where you can't quite remember it not having spoken dialog. You just don't miss it at all.

As great as the film is, truly, it is too long -- especially since it is rather thin on plot -- and would have been better with a half hour shaved off, which could have been accomplished with a bit less time on the drawn-out battle scenes. Still, it was exceptional entertainment for all of us, including the boys' grandfather who watched with us and is a veteran of WWII. If there is anyone in your house who likes airplanes (or war films) they would love this film.

Some parent-notes are in order here. For starters, it really is pretty intense. It was recently re-released and assigned the equivalent of a PG-13. I think that's a very appropriate rating. For violence, there are a fair amount of bloody battle scenes, intense dog fights in the sky, graphically depicted bullet holes shattering planes, planes crashing violently, and the death of a beloved character. As to sex/nudity, there is a funny scene in the beginning where you can see a bunch of bare male behinds as the men are getting their physicals for military service. The cool thing is that, unlike modern movies, this is seriously underplayed. The men are in the next room while the main action is going on and the scene seems to be there for authenticity and not gratuitously done. A fairly long, drawn-out scene in a Paris night club is rather racy. First, we (briefly) see a poster of a woman in a skimpy costume, then a lead character is shown very drunk and in process of picking up a woman companion. Clara Bow's character (who is in love with him) intervenes and goes to his room with him instead. Although their interaction is innocent and he passes out, she is changing from her evening gown into her military one when MPs come in and see her half-dressed. Although she covers up immediately, a bit of nudity is shown. Again, it is part of the plot and downplayed. 

Iconic shot:

Robin Hood (1922)

Why it's here:
We had already seen and loved the Errol Flynn version (from 16 years later) and wanted to sample this 1922 rendition with Douglas Fairbanks.

Specs:
About 2 hours. Black and white, silent. Available on Youtube or elsewhere in the public domain.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
7.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We didn't need to be convinced that Robin Hood is a story that doesn't need to be told by Russell Crow. We are huge fans of Errol Flynn's version. Fairbanks makes an appealing hero, but Flynn's version is so insanely good, that this one paled by comparison for the boys.

Still, it is very watchable for families -- an interesting telling of the story, with far more background and elements (such as the Crusades) that don't appear in the other one. The story took a while to build and take hold but ultimately was a blast. Fairbanks is incredible doing acrobatic stunts that are spectacular, brave and very real.

The massive detailed sets are just remarkable and the film is worth watching for that reason alone.

Iconic shot:

A Trip to the Moon (1902)

Why it's included:
An iconic movie directed by Georges Méliès, that all film goers must watch at some point in their lives. It might as well be now.

Specs: 
Short (at about 10 minutes long) and easy to find online. Of course it's black and white and silent (as all will be for another 25 years).

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
5.38

More about the film and our response to it:
The film is on the list primarily for the iconic and cultural experience. People interested in exploring film through time could not do better than to start here because it provides a great benchmark of what cinema was (and could be) in these very early days. Chances are this film will feel odd, even jarring, to you. Filmmakers have not yet perfected how to tell a story with a camera, the acting is not yet fluid, and there is a jumble of activity that makes the plot and action hard to follow. Neophyte viewers aren't likely to love it, but you are bound to find it amusing. And the special effects may even impress you. The film has a certain charm if you allow yourself to relax and enjoy what it has to offer.

As you start your festival, with this, or any other seriously old picture, it's important to set aside a time to start when everybody is on board with the project and in the right mood. Set yourself up for success!

One of the coolest things about watching very old movies is using that experience as a springboard into conversations about what was going on in the world (or hadn't happened yet) at this period in time. For instance, it is great to note that this film pre-dates the moon landing by 67 years! How much of Méliès vision is for comedic effect? and how much is based on complete lack of understanding about the nature of the moon?  It can be an amazing experience to watch a film that was made in 1902 and think how cinema has preserved this moment in time forever.

Iconic shot: