Sleepless in Seattle (1993)

Why its here:
The romantic comedy was at its apex in the late 80s/early 90s, with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan its crown prince and princess. I love the genre myself and have seen many examples I might recommend, but this one -- Sleepless in Seattle -- was simply the perfect choice for us.  I'm not sure I realized just how well it might go over or how good it was; but Sleepless has to be the best of the genre -- a near-perfect serving of style, warmth, humor, and absurdity.

Specs:
About an hour and a half, rated PG

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

An 8.88! moving it into a tie for second place overall (along with Roman Holiday and just behind It Happened One Night).

More about the film and our reaction to it:

Its hard to explain in a blog post what makes a movie like this so good and so acceptable for family viewing. By the way, although, it was perfectly appropriate for our family, others should note that there is some frank (and, frankly silly) dialog regarding Hanks' dating endeavors. It would be easiest to just direct you to the IMDB parents guide for details.  So, no it's not perfectly tame; but it is pretty tame.  It is also extremely sweet, but never actually sappy.  I'm not sure exactly how they pulled that off. . . . Such is the magic of the film.

The film is magical; it knows it and it doesn't try to be realistic. Its a bit silly and almost weird. In less skillful hands, Meg Ryan's near-stalking of Tom Hanks might have felt objectionable. But instead, we cheer for her.  There are other elements, too, that feel just a bit strange for a romantic comedy. For instance, we all know that Hanks and Ryan have great chemistry, but in this flick, it wouldn't matter if they didn't, because they are not actually together in it. That's odd indeed.

Although ostensibly about romance, the movie is truly about something bigger and funnier than just two people meeting and dating. It is more about the promise of love, and the hope of finding it, than it is about any realization. Thus, it seems so perfectly positioned to steal the hearts of a family -- where all is not lovely dovey and mushy.  The kind of love in Sleepless is more familial; more about bonding, making do with what life has dealt and, of course, hoping.

Iconic image:

A League of Their Own (1992)

Why its here:
How can you fail with Tom Hanks, Geena Davis, baseball, and WWII-era Americana? You can't and this film doesn't. A very fun and also moving depiction of a fascinating little slice of time. . . . But you can set that all aside. The truth is, the main reason we watched is so we could show the boys the iconic "there's no crying in baseball" scene.  :)

Specs:
2 hours; rated PG

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

8.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:

The bones of the film are well-known: during WWII, when American men were in high demand for for the war effort, American women stepped up in many many ways. One of which -- that I don't think was widely known before this movie shed light on it -- was by playing baseball games to supplement thae lagging sports/entertainment 'industry', suffering in the wake of the war.

Hanks plays a washed-up, strung-out former coach who gets roped into helping one of these teams of women in the "all girl league." Davis, Petty, Madonna, O'Donnell and other comic talents play the players. The movie, directed with typical Penny Marshall style and skill, plumbs the social clashes and heart-warming drama that ensues when they are all thrown into a pot together. Its a fun, funny and feel good movie.

Iconic image:

Defending Your Life (1991)

Why its here:
Sometimes its all about the star.  This film would probably not have been on our radar but for my desire to show the boys a Meryl Streep performance. This may not be one of Streep's best films, but it is probably one of her best family-friendly ones. (I never realized, until I started researching for our viewing, but the actress does seem to do mostly R-rated, adult-humor, or highly depressing stuff.)

Specs:
Almost 2 hours; rated PG

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

7.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:

IMDB's opening comments cut right to the chase: "Considered by many critics to be the greatest living actress, Meryl Streep has been nominated for the Academy Award an astonishing 19 times, and has won it three times."  

No one will claim that Defending Your Life is a career highlight for the actress, but it is an enjoyable and very imaginative film that we would recommend. And Streep is, as always, simply brilliant to watch.

Like Heaven Can Wait, Defending Your Life has a quirky, funny take on the mechanics of the afterlife; like Heaven Can Wait, DYL also has a talented cast and skilled director with a vision, in this case Albert Brooks, who was something of a god of funny at this time. This in fact may be one of his best films.

The movie is set in Judgement City -- a place where folks go when they die and are sorted into movers-on and goers-back. While there, inmates are able to indulge themselves in many ways -- including eating whatever they want (and not getting fat), and lounging in hotel rooms that offer different levels of luxurious accommodation depending on your status upon entering the City.) Brooks (who acts, writes and directs here) and Streep play recently deceased people who have entered the City, are meeting with their case managers, and are in process of learning how the afterlife works. Their fundamental task is, as the film title implies, to prove that they lived their lives fully -- with passion, compassion and bravery, a task that is easier for Streep's character to complete than Brooks'.

Besides being funny, the film is actually quite important. I mean, the concepts behind it are not trivial at all. Brooks' skill with the topic is what makes the film as good as it is. He makes it so the viewer can fall into a state of philosophical introspection while laughing happily and falling in love. That's not an easy trick.

There are some parent-warnings that should be made however. Aside from the very nature of film and the topic of death handled irreverently (which may or may not comport with your family's values), there is a fair amount of dialog with sexual references, including penis-envy, STDs, pornography. This stuff doesn't make up much of the film, but is worth mentioning.

Iconic image:

Home Alone (1990)

Why its here:
Like it or not Home Alone has reached iconic status -- becoming a part of the cultural fabric with scenes like the one here of Macaulay Caulkin screaming when he comes to learn what aftershave is. Because we'd never seen it before, now was most definitely the time.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours; rated PG

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

7.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:

Imagine that you've never seen this film. Forget about the baggage: the five film franchise, the Culkin family's legal battles, the troubled career of this talented little boy -- and just start with a fresh slate. Picture now a talented director and very funny script, top-notch grown-up actors supporting an appealing and charismatic child, and place them all in an imaginative romp where a large extended family goes on vacation and (through an honestly plausible series of events) manages to leave their 8 year old behind at home, well, alone.

Its a great concept and very well-executed. Its the same child-in-a-grown-up's-world survival fantasy concept that movies like Big or books like "From the Mixed up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler" plumb to great effect. And Home Alone is no dud in the mix. It is charming, funny, and satisfying.

Iconic image:

Driving Miss Daisy (1989)

Why its here:
Any opportunity for mom to add context and meaning to the Civil Rights era and its nuances is good.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Driving Miss Daisy is another film, like The African Queen, On Golden Pond, or Funny Girl, that you just don't expect to score a big hit with teenage boys. I don't know if I mean to complement my kids' open-mindedness for this, or the filmmakers great talent, but DMD was a major success in our household.

What makes the movie great are the same elements that went into us loving other similar films: wonderful scripts, top-notch character-centered acting and a great story. You just can't fake great. This movie is simply very well made and it should stand the test of time because of it.

Jessica Tandy as the elderly white Jewish woman, headstrong and curt, but basically kind, and her grown son played by an astonishingly and surprisingly talented Dan Aykroyd, have hired a middle-aged black driver, played by Morgan Freedman, to do the driving for Miss Daisy, that she can no longer do for herself.  The film is nothing more than the poignant depiction of their business relationship and budding but odd friendship against the backdrop of the civil rights era South.  The story is sweet and simple and very scaled down, yet it is a profoundly good, feel-good movie that manages to be both laugh out loud hilarious and very touching.

Iconic image:

Big (1988)

Why it's here:
This was a no-brainer. I couldn't wait to show the kids Tom Hanks' iconic performance.

Specs:
Just over 1 1/2 hours; rated PG*

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
8.5 -- making it one of our highest rated films in the festival

More about the film and our reaction to it:
About halfway in to this film, I was contemplating rating it a '10'. I couldn't quite see what wasn't perfect about the film and was just trying to decide if its 'impact' was significant enough to get that high mark. Luckily I was spared the decision, because in the last half, the film began to lose its purpose and derail into something a bit awkward.  Big loses its true heart and center in the last half hour and begins to feel melodramatic and even a bit depressing as it focuses on Elizabeth Perkins' emotional baggage and issues, rather than the magical transformation of Josh and the real growth of his relationship with his friend.

But... though, it isn't perfect, that doesn't mean it's not fantastic! The best thing about the film is Hanks' overwhelming and profound performance as a 12 year old man. It is impossible to praise his work too highly. He personifies this story perfectly.  I truly believe I'm watching a boy who has been transformed into a grown up body, Hanks so totally 'gets' the 12 year old experience.  The true heart of the movie is the relationship between Josh and his best friend as they negotiate this new challenge and the big scary and exciting world of New York City.

Unfortunately, the amazing start gives way to a more run of the mill 80s comedy/drama and devolves into adult themes.  I'm seeing strong pattern with films of this era. So many of the PG films from the 80s want to blend kid-friendly content with fairly adult sexual content (Roxanne, Three Amigos, Beetlejuice . . . ) Big does this as well. There are scenes that would be very unlikely to be found in a PG film today. In fact, when the scene where Eliz. Perkins and Josh have a sexual encounter came on screen, I gasped. I'd forgotten this was there. She removes her blouse and Josh is mesmerized with her breasts. He is shown fondling her for a moment and this is a very awkward family-viewing moment that parents should be aware of. There are several other moments in the film where Josh stares at Elizabeth Perkins' open blouse or chest area. And, really, the whole idea that Josh begins a sexual relationship with a grown up woman when he is in some way/'really just 13, is somewhat troubling.  But, if you can get past these things, you will find an adorable and memorable movie and, from Hanks, the kind of classic performance that is not to be missed.

Iconic image:

Beetlejuice (1988)

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

Specs:
An hour and a half; rated PG*

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

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

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

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

Iconic image:

Roxanne (1987)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iconic image:

The Three Amigos (1986)

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

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

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

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

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

Iconic image:

Back to the Future (1985)

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

Specs:
2 hours; PG

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

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

Iconic image:

The Gods Must be Crazy (1984)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iconic image:

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:

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 Love Bug (1968)

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

Specs:
1 1/2 hours. Color.

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

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

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

Iconic Image:

Barefoot in the Park (1967)

Why its here:
Robert Redford and Jane Fonda are enough of a reason. But add a funny Neil Simon play, and this one is not to be missed.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours. Color.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
8.0. We all gave it an "8"!

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We were all highly charmed by this film about the challenges of a young married couple. Their personalities are quite different, but they are passionate about each other. It feels very much like a play turned movie (which, of course, it is), with most of the action taking place in the newlywed's apartment. Although the story has depth and heart, it also has enough silly comedy moments that it appealed to everyone. In particular, the mother/mother-in-law and the telephone installation/repair guy gave us a lot to laugh at, is did the recurring joke about the many flights of stairs needing to be scaled to reach the apartment.

Both lead actors here show why they deserved stardom. They are not just beautiful to look at, but overflowing with charisma and interest. Their performances, and an excellent supporting cast, really make this film great.

Iconic Image:

Batman (1966)

Why its here:
My brother made me do it : )

Specs:
1 1/2 hours. Color

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
6.4

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I'm not ashamed to admit it: I liked this film. There, I said it.  In fact, our collective rating would have been much higher had my husband not given it a "5". To enjoy this film, you have to accept it on its own terms - which are campy 60s hipster fluff. If you can do that, then you will probably like the movie too. (My husband, obviously, could not.)

Please do NOT attempt to show this film to modern kids without first disabusing them of any notion that it will be 'like' modern superhero movies (i.e. Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man). It couldn't be more different. It is intentionally cheesy.  Flat and slightly absurd, with silly dialog and special effects, it is hard to describe to someone who never saw the 60s TV show.  Having the right expectations is half the battle.

The film is an exploded episode of the show, with all your favorite villains making an appearance. Robin's iconic "holy [fill in the blank], Batman" makes several appearances: my favorite, "Holy heartbreak, Batman."

Is is groundbreaking meaningful cinema? No. Is it a silly and fun treat? Absolutely!

Iconic Image:

The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966)

Why its here:
My sister-in-law added it to our list. It is not a movie I would have chosen; but it was the least I could do for her :)   so we watched!

Specs:
Hour and a half; color

Our family's rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
7.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I was stunned that this movie was as good as it was. I had very low expectations. haha.  In terms of plot, this film is very much like a Scooby Doo story in live action -- but with a bit more heart. Don Knotts is fantastic. He is very charming, funny and highly sympathetic as a doormat who wants to be a reporter and somehow gets swept in to a "spend the night in a haunted house" type of dare.

Even beyond the indisputable comedy chops of Knotts, this movie can hold its own. It is sweet and clever and well-acted - though simple.

It is also very appropriate for families and likely to be enjoyed by those who don't spend a lot of time in classic cinema. Youngest viewers will probably be scared, though. The chills value may be light by today's standards, but it is still scary and creepy. Make sure you have some blankets to hide under!

Iconic Image:

The Great Race (1965)

Why its here:
A chance to see Tony Curtis (who is fabulous here) and Natalie Wood (who we hadn't seen since she was a child in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir). This was supposed to be a fantastic epic comedy.

Specs:
Color. Nearly 3 hours.

Our family's rating on a scale of 1-10:
6.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
It may be a great race, but its only a good movie.  The Great Race is hampered in part by the fact that we've seen this movie, twice, before. Perhaps wishing to ride the success of Around the World in 80 Days and Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, this film canvases much the same metaphoric and literal territory, in glorious technicolor and at over 3 hours in length.  Problem is, the others did it better. There was plenty of time for my mind to wander and I found myself getting bored - a rare occurrence indeed during our festival.

The performances are strong and the film generally very well-made and entertaining, but the plot lacked focus and well, just dragged on. What is it with these 60s epic films?! Lawrence of Arabia, Its a Mad ... World, My Fair Lady and now The Great Race have all clocked in at 3 hours + and included intermissions. We are ready for something short!

Iconic Image:

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)

Why it's here:
Because we love comedy and, since this is the 60s, we were looking for anything to lighten the mood.

Specs:
Epic comedy - 3 hours long; color

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a funny, funny, funny, funny movie. Still. Yes, it's from 1963, but it is hilarious and an extremely well-made film that, though dated, holds up very well. In fact, it feels like you are actually watching the birth of modern comedy take place before you. This film is at the roots of Monty Python and Airplane! and much that came after.

If this gives you any indication of how much we liked the movie: the running time is 3 hours. We watched it twice this week.

The barrage of great icons of classic comedy in the film is nothing short of breathtaking and the humor ranges from silly, to irony, to absurd, to slapstick. But there's more -- The film also goes beyond the sidesplitting fun with a real plot and what seems like a true/honest purpose. I think this accounts for why the film still feels solid and relevant 50 years later.  It starts with a speeding car on a mountain road, and then several strangers who come upon the driver who lies dying after having crashed. The dying man discloses the location of a huge sum of money and a chase to find it is on -- complete with police secretly following. The film is simple - but simply well-made too.

So many scenes from this film have clearly inspired Hollywood movie making to this day, and I found myself constantly thinking: "I've seen that before". From the car chases, the money raining down from on high, the slow fleeing on a bicycle, the deadpan control tower guy trying to talk hapless accidental pilots down, the police operations-center scenes, the hardened cop on the line between good and bad, the guys all in traction at the end, and on and on and on this film includes many moments that have become quintessential in comedy.

All in all this has to be one of our most loved films of the festival so far and we highly recommend it for families!

Iconic Image:

The Absentminded Professor (1961)

Why its here:
For some simple light-hearted fun.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours, black and white

Our family's rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This may not be a major moment in cinematic history, but its good. Really enjoyable and simple fun. We'd definitely recommend for family viewing.

This is the story of flubber. And some bad guys. And a good (absentminded) guy who is also a scientist, and of course his shaggy dog... whoops, that's a different movie. Only there is a dog here too. And he is in fact shaggy. But most of all, it's the story of a flying Model-T Ford and really, that's enough.  Don't expect anything more. ... And set your high modern production standards down at the door as you pick up your suspension of disbelief and just sit back and enjoy this fun movie.

As a side note, it was great to see Nancy Olson again, who we'd enjoyed so much in Sunset Blvd., in a very different kind of film.

Iconic Image: