#86 Monty Python And The Holy Grail

1975

John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin

This movie is only the second movie so far from the list I have seen before, and what a classic it is. If you like mental humor, total randomness and not really knowing whats going on, this is for you. Im not a 100% sure people outside of the UK will fully get the humor, but it is written by the same zany bunch who wrote A Fish Called Wanda and  The Life Of Brian.

Straight from the first minute you know what kind of movie you are in for, as the credits roll they start off correct, and as they progress they start to get a bit silly, until they are stopped and a message says they have sacked the person who has done this. The movie begins with the sound of a man riding a horse through a field, what we actually get is King Arthur prancing around like a horse, while his servant claps to coconut shells together to make him sound like a horse.

To go in to the story of this movie will take me forever, as there are about 10 different stories all culminating towards the same end goal, to find the holy grail. So instead I thought id just point out a few of my favorite parts and the more mental aspects of the movie. As I said before, for some reason the knights of the round table are all walking around like horses rather than riding them, on their quest for the grail the encounter many challenges. One of the challenges they come across is the dark knight who is protecting a bridge, he tells king Arthur he will kill him rather than let him across the bridge. A sword fight ensues and king Arthur cuts off the mans right arm, to which the the conversation goes:

Arthur: Ha I win

Knight: Tis just a scratch

Arthur: Your arm is off

Knight: no it isnt

Arthur: yes it is.. look..

They then continue to fight until he cuts the knights other arm off, to which the Knight says "its nothing but a flesh wound". The Knight then decided he can try and win by headbutting Arthur, this is until the knight gets cut in half. Other things that are awesome and strange at the same time include a killer bunny rabbit, some knights who need a shrubbery to allow you past, a 3 headed knight and a village that is desperate to burn a woman they suspect is a witch, and use the logic that if she weighs the same as a duck shes a witch.

Another classic scene is when Arthur comes across some peasants working in a field, only for the peasant to have a conversation  with Arthur about the economic structure and democracy. Its that kind of randomness that makes this film what it is, some of the stuff is just so daft you have to just laugh at it. It is really nice to see a 35 year old English comedy still up there with the cinema greats.I do recon this is a movie that you either love or hate, there is no middle ground, you either get the humor, or you just think its stupid which probably makes you stupid, but who am I to judge :)

The ending is the most random part of all, I want you to watch it if you haven't already, so ill leave that bit a mystery.

The Scores

Visual
6/10 - Difficult one this, because its not trying to be serious, so the sets etc.. are not fully how you thought they would be.

Sound
5/10 - Not a great deal of sounds, some funny songs throughout 

Acting
7/10 - again the acting is hard to judge, because its a movie about a book of a movie and the craziness of it all means they act it really well, but really poorly at the same time.

Plot
5/10 - Plot is simple, all the different stories all come together in the end.

Ending 
7/10 - Ending gets a decent score as its just crazy, if you were sat in the cinema, you would be saying "huh, has it ended? Like that? really?"

Final Score

30/50

Brilliant comedy by some brilliant English comedy minds.

Total Movie Minutes So Far ~ 1796

Next up is Oldboy (2003)

Please Like, Subscribe, share and add comments 

Thanks, Luke.

#87 Singin' In The Rain

1952

Jean Hagen

Gene Kelly

Donald Oconnor

Debbie Reynolds (Center)

So this is it, the last of the terrible run of movies I had no interest in, Some of them threw up surprises and I actually liked them, others were not so enjoyable. Singin' in the rain is a musical, and to be honest, I cant stand musicals, so I wasn't looking forward to watching this at all. The first half isn't that musical like but the second half is one big sing song.

The Storyline

The movie is set in 1927, Don Lockwood (Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Hagen) are a famous on screen silent movie couple, the only problem is, Don knows this has only been set up for the media, but Lina doesn't understand that and thinks he really does love her. This is set around the time movies with sound were being invented, unfortunately for this pair, Lina has a shrill voice, she cant sing and she cant act. The movie company make their first ever movie with sound, and it is laughed out of the cinema due to Lina's incredibly bad performance . Don comes up with an idea to change the movie in to a musical and use Kathy Sleden (Reynolds) to voice over the parts played by Lina. In return for doing the voice over Kathy is promised a bigger role in the next movie, Lina has other ideas for Kathy's fate.

All in all its a story of a love triangle, and it all ends happily for 2 points of the triangle, the other point is left humiliated after she tries to screw over Kathy and the whole movie company. For a musical I didn't hate it,the first half of the movie had little singing in it and im glad it was only 103 minutes as the second half was all singing practically.

The Scores

Visual
6/10 - Some good singing and dancing as you would expect

Sound
5/10 - lots of musical singing, not really my cup of tea

Acting
6/10 - Very well acted, think that's what made it watchable for me.

Plot
5/10 - Nothing too brain taxing

Ending 
6/10 - Nice to see the stupid Lina get what she deserved.

Final Score

28/50

For a Sunday, hung over, It was ok just to lay an watch.

Total Movie Minutes So Far ~ 1705

Next up is Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1975)

Please Like, Subscribe, share and add comments 

Thanks, Luke.

#88 Some Like It Hot

1959

Director Billy Wilder (The Apartment)

Marilyn Monroe

Jack Lemmon ( The Apartment)

Wilder and Lemmon team up again in another movie on the top 100. The Apartment (also featuring these two) came out a year after this, but I can see why the Director would choose him as his leading man. Lemmon is charismatic, funny an a brilliant actor for that era. I had to watch this at the second time of asking due to technical difficulties....

The storyline...

The year is 1929, Jerry (Lemmon) and Joe (Tony Curtis) are two guys playing in a band, the venue they are playing is in a Chicago mortuary, which has been slightly modified to hold a nightclub, equipped with band, dancers and illegal booze. The club is ran by some mobsters, and we see the bar being raided in the early part of the movie. Jerry and Joe manage to escape, and with no wages coming to them are desperate for a job. After they get caught being witnesses to a murder by the same mob, they flee to Florida, disguised as women in an all women band. The movie really gets going when Sugar (Monroe) comes in. She is a slightly dim, off the rails kinda woman, and shes pretty gullible too, but saying that Monroe is sexiness personified, the whole film is set to revolve around her, and why the hell not!




This is a pretty clever movie as it wants you to think the movie is about the mobsters and the chase, but really its just about sex. Initially Jerry and Joe are both fighting for the attention of Sugar, until Joe gets the upper hand. As Jerry and Joe are both pretending to be women they can get in close and find out what Sugar likes,

Joe, acting as an oil tycoon to lure Sugar in.

then Joe uses this to lure her in, when later that day he is dressed as a rich man pretending to be one of the owners of the oil company, Shell. Now while this is going off Jerry is being stalked by a rich man who owns a boat that is docked there, Joe makes Jerry take the man out dancing while he takes Sugar on his boat.

I enjoyed this movie just the same as I enjoyed The Apartment, it was an easy watch, plenty of funny parts and plenty of shots of Sugar exposing her self just enough to make it classy and sexy. As the theme continues with old black and white movies I could have easily knocked 20 mins off this, im not sure if it was just because I was very tired when watching it or because it really was just padded out in places. The overall story of two blatant men dressed as women was quite unbelievable but that added to the comedy of it all. There are a couple of things that annoyed me in this like the two of them talking like men to each other, yet someone behind a curtain couldn't hear them and a guy who had 5 men shooting at him, still managed to be alive to use a telephone, but hey, lets just say back in the 50's they just wanted a funny movie, not necessarily a true to life one.

The Scores

Visual
7/10 - Cant complain with looking at a scantily clad Monroe for a few hours

Sound
4/10 They are in a band, thats most of the music we get.

Acting
8/10 Lemmon, Monroe and Curtis all play brilliant parts.

Plot
5/10 - pretty stupid, and near on possible to pull off in real life, but that added to the comedy.

Ending 
4/10 - I couldn't believe how it ended, it just...ended...

Final Score

28/50

I enjoyed watching this movie, an easy watch if you have 2 hours to burn.

Total Movie Minutes So Far ~ 1602

Next up Singing In The Rain....... Kill me now!

Please Like, Subscribe, share and add comments 

Thanks, Luke.

#89 Metropolis

1927

Director: Fritz Lang

Here it is folks, the one you have all been waiting for, Fritz Langs Classic 1920's German made silent movie, Please try and contain your excitement. In all fairness, I do have some German readers of this blog so maybe they will enjoy a review of the only German (I think) made movie on the list.

This movie is the first full length silent movie I have ever watched, and if it wasn't for this challenge I probably would never have watched one in full. I do have to admit tho, as its silent i did watch it a little faster than normal speed, partly to ease the pain of having to sit through 2 hours of this and partly because I watched it at the gym and didn't want to be on the exercise bike for 2 hours.

So this movie actually has a pretty interesting history, and I think that partly attributed to its cult success, and it being remastered in 2001. The original was made in 1925 costing a massive $5 million dollars, that is about the equivalent to 60-70 million dollars now. So to put that in to perspective, The Host which is out now in the cinema, had a budget of just $40 million. 

When the movie was first shown, it was a 50/50 split between people who loved it and people who thought it was too simplistic in its idea and presentation, and far too long. I have to say tho, the effects for a movie back in the day were spectacular, From a robot woman (pictured below) to different graphics on the screen, to the transformation of the robot to a human being. The reason it got remastered was because of the reaction it got from critics, after the first screening the movie was cut down considerably, and it continued to do so a few more times. Unfortunately due to this cutting, a large portion of the film was lost, so the remastered version had bits added to it to make the story have some kind of continuity. 

So the plot.... Ill break it down so its easy to understand, it is set in 2027 in a futuristic city called Metropolis. Above the ground are the rich and wealthy, who live in high rise towers and have a lavish life style. Below the ground are the workers, slaving away to keep the upper class happy. The owner of the city has a son, he has been brought up in the lavish world above ground and like many, has no understanding of how poor the working class have to live. This all changes when he sees a woman with many children who are having a tour of the impressive "pleasure garden", he is instantly intrigued by her and tries to find her in the under ground factories of the working class. He sees the terrible conditions the other half of the population have to work in and decided to try and close the gap of equality. At the same time, the workers are starting to go to secret meetings being ran by the same woman, she is a prophet who is sure a mediator between the workers and the rich will arrive, the man character turns out to be that mediator. While this is going on his father, crazed by power, has his friend build a robot to mimic the girl and tries to ruin his son, but this only ends up hurting himself. We are constantly reminded throughout the movie that,

The mediator between the head and hands must be the heart

Scores 

Visual
4/10 shocking for most of the movie, as you would expect for a 1920's movie, the effects give it the 4.

Sound
1/10 this is a silent movie so I cant give it much, there has been some music added but its pretty bad.

Acting
3/10 - I always thought a silent film, the acting told the story rather than the words, Not round here my friend.

Plot
7/10 - I liked the plot, and the ideas behind it

Ending 6/10 cant beat a good burning at the stake to end a movie
Final Score

21/50

Its a bad score, you may think ive been harsh because its an 86 year old movie, but I would like you to sit through it and then give it a rating.

Up next is Some Like It Hot.....

Please Like, Subscribe, share and add comments 

Thanks, Luke.

#91 Amadeus

Add caption

Lead: F Murray Abraham (Scarface)

Director: Milos Forman (One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest)

 Amadeus, the penultimate movie of the 90's, a 3 hour long Directors Cut was in store for me and my guest Jessica Noble. As I mentioned in the last blog, there is a group of about 8 movies which I have not been looking forward to, this one did not let me down. It was watchable, but just far too long. 3 hours, I mean come one, I could have told this story in 1.5 hours and made it much more enjoyable.

The story line is told from the prospective of Antonio Salieri. Salieri is now in a mental hospital, and he is explaining to a priest what happened, and if the story's are true, and he did indeed kill Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.


The whole this is constant flash backs of important moments in the life of Salieri and Mozart, unbeknownst to Mozart, Salieri is his rival, his enemy and he will do anything to defeat Mozart.

Mozart is a childish immature 26 year old, but also utterly brilliant in composing music, on the other hand Salieri is a much more mature man, a god worshiper who wants nothing more than god to choose him to be the best composer rather than Mozart.

As the story progresses we see many attempts by Salieri to derail Mozart who has now been commissioned to write an opera in an nontraditional German language rather than Italian.

The movie is set in 1823, and unlike some (more annoying  period movies, the script was written in modern English, so no irritating random backward speak we see in some movies. The sets and costumes were pretty impressive. Im not sure why back then, the bigger the wig the better, but we saw some brilliant barnets.



Like i said at the beginning, this movie was too long, and that made it for me, tedious and not that enjoyable. Im starting to wonder if IMDB is having a laugh at my expense with this part of the list, by no means was this movie one to remember, and so here are the scores.....

Visual
7/10 Great sets and great costumes, some good looking ladies in it too!

Sound
7/10 As you can expect, this is a movie about Mozart, so the music is all classical but stunning, probably the best part of the movie.

Acting
7/10 - well acted, everyone seemed convincing, just if it was shorter...

Plot
5/10 - good plot but marked down for the length of time it took to play out.

Ending 
4/10 - if you watch this, you will see why I gave it this score.

Final Score

30/50

30 is a decent score for this one. Boosted by its acting and music but let down by its plot and ending.

Guest scores by Jess
Visual
7/10 
Sound
8/10 
Acting
7/10 
Plot
4/10 
Ending 
3/10 

Total Movie Minutes So Far - 1329 
  

Up next should be Bicycle Thieves, but unfortunately I cant find anywhere to get it quickly, so ill have to come back to that one, So the next movie is Matropolis (1927) German made SILENT movie, FFS.

Please Like, Subscribe, share and add comments 

Thanks, Luke.

#92 Rashomon

1950

Director : Akira Kurisawa (Seven Samurai  - Also in the top 100)

Lead: Toshiro Mifune (Also in Seven Samurai)

For a 63 year old Japanese film, you will be please to hear I didn't hate it, That doesn't mean I liked or understood it.

After I finished watching it, I was again left scratching my head and asking, what have I just watched.This wasn't the same feeling after I had watched 2001 A Space Odyssey, because that was just weird, Rushomon left me wondering if I had either missed something or it just had no ending.

So apparently 3 of the assistant directors went to Akira (the Director) and told him they didn't understand the movie, he explained it and 2 of them were happy, the other one still didn't get it. So if they didn't understand it, and they were directing it, what hope have I got?? any way, here is what I thought.....

The basic plot revolves around the murder of a man. There are 4 accounts of the murder all of them different. The Bandit (Toshiro Mifune) says he killed the man to win the love of the now dead mans wife. The wife's account where she says the Bandit ran off, she blacked out and when she woke up he was dead. Bizarrely there is the dead mans account via a medium where he says he killed himself because he heard his wife say she would run away with the bandit and lastly there is a witness' view and he  said (I think) the men looked like they were possessed by the woman, and they were fighting for her affection.

I think the basic underlying message is that all people lie, even to themselves (apart from me of course ;-/ ). The flash backs show what actually happened, but in 3 different ways from each persons perception of what did happen. The clever part of the movie is that all of the flash backs are true, but all of them are lies also, a man did die, which they all agree on, but trying to protect themselves, they all lie about how it happened, if that makes sense?.

Thankfully this movie was only 1 hour 28 minutes long, unlike other old movies of this era. So it seemed to go by pretty fast, just the right length in my opinion. 

Now, hands up who has seen or even heard of this movie, none of you?? Thought not. So how the hell is it in the top 100. I can say hand on heart, this is not better than 1000 movies I have seen before, so who the hell is voting on IMDB? it would have to be media studies students for sure, Do they not realize I have to sit here and watch this?.

On with the scores....

Visual
4/10 - Small scenes, ridiculous fight scene at the end. 

Sound
2/10 Pretty shitty. Nothing more to add here.

Acting
4/10 - Basic, random laughing by the characters did my head in.

Plot
6/10 - Confusing but good, made the film go pretty quickly.

Ending 
4/10 - No real conclusion to what happened and who killed who, but does leave you asking questions, and I strangely like that sometimes.
Final Score

20/50

Not the best score for a movie that apparently opened up Japanese cinema to the western world, but I would say I did prefer this to 2001 ASO.

Total Movie Minutes So Far - 1169 
  
Next up is ..... Amadeus. Another movie I have never heard of or seen...

Please Like, Subscribe, share and add comments 

Thanks, Luke.

#93 2001: A Space Odyssey

1968

Directed by this cool SOB Mr. Stanley Kubrick
(A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket and The Shining)

Lead: Keir Dullea (In noting else famous to be honest)

After the shambles of All About Eve, I had high hopes this would restore my faith in humanity and be a classic. From the director of more quality films than you can shake a stick at, Im hoping this one wasn't in the top 100 on the reputation of the director alone.

So the above paragraph I wrote before I watched this one. Now all along I am trying to keep in perspective and think this was made in the 1960's, so its never going to be a sparkling array of CGI brilliance . With that in mind I pressed play....

The movie begins with 3 minutes of total darkness and a classical score being played out, when a picture does decide to make an appearance, it is one of a sprawling alien landscape, covered with apes.

If you have never seen this movie before like me, you have no idea what to expect, so to mine and my fellow watchers Kidcynic and miss Lumsden, this was a LONG LONG drawn out affair. It takes 24 minutes for the first person to even utter a word, and just 45 minutes for the actual story to be explained. In the first 24 minutes we see the evolution of man, almost in real time. The first hour of this movie is totally pointless and has no real bearing on the rest of it.

After the apes have gone we get slowly transported to a space ship, that is being ran by Hal 9000, a super computer which has a conscious entity and human emotions. Hal proclaims that his type of computer has never made a mistake. Hal decides or is programmed by a mystical timtam / ancient power to kill all the members on board the least ergonomically designed spaceship in the galaxy. The part about the killing should have been the longest part of the film, yet it was just crammed in, in between many wide angle shots of space, where nothing happens, absolutely nothing.

This was also the first movie I have ever watched on DVD that has an intermission, but to be honest the first 90 minutes felt like an intermission. So after a quick toilet break we sat down for the second part with renewed faith that the story was going to kick off. We were wrong.....

The whole thing felt disjointed and the parts that mattered were rushed, while, for example, a ship passing the screen took literally 5 - 10 minutes. The who thing was finished off by a psychedelic 10 minutes of random colour, flashes of different landscapes and a blinking eye that changed colour. The whole thing was finished with the most random end to a movie I think i have ever seen, leaving you just to shout over the credits WTF!

If you cant get a grip on what happened from my explanation, then I wouldn't bother watching the film because you will just be asking yourself the same questions. Even though it was pretty bad, after it had gone off and I started to write this, Im starting to wonder if I did enjoy it, I just didn't know at the time.

Scores

Visual
5/10 - Probably generations ahead with special effects for the 60's. This movie also invented Skype and the Ipad.

Sound
5/10 - Some classic classical tunes

Acting
4/10 - Nothing fancy.

Plot
4/10 - Pretty flimsy and basic

Ending 
2/10 - Totally random, none of the movie indicated this is how it would end, it was if they couldn't think what to do, so they just made you completely confused.

Final Score

20/50

A poor score, maybe I just didn't get it. Ill have to read some stuff about it to see if it makes sense then.

Total Movie Minutes So Far - 1081 
  
Next up is Rashomon.....

#94 All About Eve

1950

Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Betty Davis

Marilyn Monroe

From second 1 to second 8293 of this movie I wanted to chuck the tv out of the window, its fair to say I detested this movie, in fact I hated it that much I have no idea why it was ever voted in the top 100, so much so, I decided to do some research to see what people loved about it. Looking at a few professional critics reviews, they rave about the acting from most of the cast in this movie. Now I must admit, the characters were played with real class for a movie of this age, but to me, it was a "stuck up snob" of a movie. Its the kind of film where my wife would have either been engrossed in her kindle, fast asleep or pulled the old "french exit" and escaped to freedom.

The basic story is of an aging actress Margo (Betty Davis) starting to lose her charm and glamour to a young fan, turned under study Eve (Anne Baxtor). The movie starts with an overly posh man explaining each character while they are sat at an award show. Eve wins the award and most of the room is clapping apart from Margo, who has a bitter look on her face. Rewind 9 months and we start on the journey of the young Eve in her attempt to reach the top of the stardom tree, leaving a displeased Margo in her wake.

Now anyone who is reading this can try and explain the best parts of this movie, but it just comes across as so elitist, dribble written and performed by the high society of the Hollywood scene of the 40's and 50's. Granted the acting is good but it just bored me to tears. The only upshot I saw was a cameo role from Marilyn Monroe.

Now time for the scores, im going to be harsh here, maybe you will think overly harsh, but I just couldn't get in to this at all. Other movies from a similar decade such as "The Apartment" were far far more superior and enjoyable than this, so here goes....

Scores 

Visual

3/10 - Some nice costumes, and Monroe

Sound

2/10 - Pretty boring classical scores, as most movies have of this age

Acting

6/10 - made the 2 hours and 13 minutes feel slightly less than 3 weeks.

Plot

3/10 - boring

Ending 

3/10 we had seen the end at the beginning, best part about it was that it finally turned up.

Final Score

17/50

Total Movie Minutes So Far - 940!

Now thats finished the next movie is #93 2001:A Space Odyssey ive got high hopes for this one, but looking at the list, the next 8 films after that will be a real test. Wish me luck!

#95 The Sting

1973

Director: George Roy Hill
(Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid)

Lead: Paul Newman (Cars)

So number 95 in the list. When I looked at the poster and the date it was released I wasn't over excited about having to endure another 2 hours + of pre 80's mediocre movie. Bizarrely this was released on Christmas day in the US, Now I have a couple of American friends, and I know they are avid movie goers, But I doubt even they would skip out on a cold snowy Christmas day, ditch the festivities with their family and sit in the cinema to watch this.

The story is set in 1930's Chicago, following a con man called Johnny Hooker (Paul Newman). He is teamed up with his partner in crime, Luther Coleman. We see him and Luther deceive a man out of about $15,000, and also deceive the audience who hadn't yet been told they were working together. Hooker, soon realizes he has robbed a connected guy in a gang related business. The next day hooker finds his friend dead,killed by the gang who found out about them. Hooker decides to skip town to avoid the heat and to get revenge on the boss of the gang who killed his friend.

Gandorff and Hooker.

Hooker now teams up with Henry Gondorff, an old buddy of the now late Luther. Gandorff is an old big time con man, and decides to help Hooker in his "Sting" that will damage the boss financially, rather than physically.


The plot is to set up a fake betting racket. Hooker and Gandoff will slowly get close to the mark and con him in to betting big money on a horse race that had already taken place.

The boss, Doyle Lonnegan is and Irish banker who is also a card cheat and a gang boss. Hooker and Gandoff + a team of about 30 guys and 1 lady set up a fake club and start to gain the trust of Lonnegan through giving him the correct outcome of a few races. As this progresses the bets get bigger and bigger until the final bet of $500,000 which for 1930 must have been about $5,000,000, Big bucks.

This movie was a pretty easy watch, mainly because it is broken down in to segments. Each part of the movie has a title screen with what is going to happen. So you can just sit back and enjoy the story unfolding. 

Without being too complicated the story had enough twists and turns to keep you occupied. This movie must have been a pioneering milestone in the genre of mobster/con artist movies.  The set was good, setting the scene of the mean streets of Chicago back in the 30's, along with the mobster style suits and vehicles they drove. Unlike movies of this genre today, this was made with less, car chases and CGI and more whit and charisma.

I think ill not spoil this one, and leave the final twist in the plot for you to watch yourselves, but it was a BIG one, this had my guessing from the last 45 minutes onwards, when the FBI, local cop and cafe worker got involved. A great ending to a mostly pleasant watch. I say mostly pleasant, the leading ladies in this movie were lacking in the aesthetics department, but on a plus note, this is the first movie in the 100 so far with female nudity in (not the leading ladies may I add), always a most in a great film.

Scores   

Visual
6/10 - Great set and costumes.

Sound
4/10 - A familiar sounding theme tune, but does sound more like an ice cream truck coming down the road, than an intro to a serious movie.

Acting
5/10 - Straight down the middle, nothing brilliant for me, but noting too shabby. Just a good watch

Plot
6/10 - Plot was good, twisting and turning all the way through.

Ending
7/10 - Great ending, good twist that surprised me.

Final Score

28/50


Total Movie Minutes So Far - 802

Up next - All About Eve (1950)