At the Movies (My Mission)

I don't consider myself, by any means, a film aficionado. Don't get me wrong, I love movies, but I don't analyze them and take them as seriously as I do music. Usually I just take them in for entertainment's sake, and rate them on my four-part scale. Let me explain to you this movie-rating scale:

Movies (along with other art forms, but in my opinion most easily done with film) can be divided into four categories, or, as I'll call them, tiers.

TIER I: GOOD and ENTERTAINING. Not only was the film brilliantly produced, directed, acted, etc., but it flat-out held my attention span. Some examples I think of: "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, "Braveheart," "Gladiator," "The Dark Night," and so on (but it's not limited to epics - this is just a list of some of my favorite movies that were successful at the Oscars as well.)

TIER II: GOOD but NOT ENTERTAINING. I find that many films featured at the Academy Awards fall into this category. Look, I recognize good film making when I see it, but can you give me a plot to hold on to? Something to interest me and keep me talking when I leave the theater? Wanna know what my least favorite movie is? "The Hours." Awful. And that movie was nominated for 9 OSCARS. Yes, 9. It even won Nichole Kidman the Best Actress award. God help me if that movie didn't make me reconsider appreciating the joys of life.

TIER III: BAD but ENTERTAINING. This category is mainly reserved for comedies and action fare. Let me use "Transformers" as an example; the plot was stupid, the lines were cheesy, the acting bad, but doggone it if I didn't leave the theater feeling at least a little exhilarated. See, it's possible to hold my attention span and give me the ride of my life without assuring that the film is going to land in the AFI's Top 100 Films of All Time.

TIER IV: BAD and NOT ENTERTAINING. You know the type. The "Paul Blart: Mall Cop's" of the world.

So there you have it, that's how I rank my movies. I will usually give time to the first three tiers (the second tier if only to see what all the rave is about), but won't touch the fourth tier unless it's Katie's turn for a romantic comedy or I'm just interested in spending time with an old friend for hang out's sake.

This is all to say that I'm really not that picky with films. I know what's good and I know what's bad, but I'm usually pretty lenient and know when not to take something too seriously.

I have two friends who treat movies as I do music: Max and Jacob. Actually, they probably know more about the film industry than I know about music - they're grad students in the film department here at OU. Their knowledge of and appreication for film is really quite impressive, and I can't really keep up when they discuss very aspects of film, various well-known directors, and various pastiche genre masterpieces from the 1940's (that one's for you, Max.)

In order to have a clearer understanding of what the hell Max and Jacob ever talk about, I sent them on a mission: comprise a list of 24 hours-worth of movies that they know I haven't seen (which sorta kinda includes everything made before 1980.) I am to watch all of these films (though not necessarily in a 24-hour marathon, that was just used as a parameter), and report back to them what I think.

Last night I received the list. Below is what I have today added to my Netflix account and what I will be plowing through in the next couple of weeks. Wish me luck.

THE LIST

* "The General," 1927
* "Un Chien Andalou," 1928
* "City Lights," 1931
* "Duck Soup," 1933
* "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," 1939
* "Rashomon," 1950
* "12 Angry Men," 1957
* "The Seventh Seal," 1957
* "Bande a Part," 1964
* "Dr. Strangelove," 1964
* "Aguirre: The Wrath of God," 1972
* "Taxi Driver," 1976
* "Eraserhead," 1977
* "Days of Heaven," 1978
* "Stalker," 1979