Bringing Up Baby (1938)

I have a very clear memory of watching this as a child. I absolutely loved it, and not just because I had a giant crush on Cary Grant. "Bringing Up Baby" made me laugh until I cried. There's something about being a child and letting such silliness take over your whole body, fully embracing the hilarity to where your belly aches. In many ways, screwball comedies such as this one are best viewed by a younger audience, an audience who isn't yet jaded by reality and responsibility - and even more importantly an audience not yet aware of what they should and shouldn't like.

Cary Grant plays David Huxley, a young paleontologist soon to be wed. He has painstakingly been preparing a full brontosaurus skeleton and is awaiting the final bone to make it complete. The day before his wedding, he meets Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn), a free-spirited troublemaker who manages to entangle David into series of embarrassing incidents many of which involve a leopard named Baby. The slapstick comedy combines the perfect mix of hilarious elements as the eccentric characters seek a large sum of money, fumble over dangerous animals, steal cars, get in car accidents, gain and lose precious dinosaur bones, and all on the eve and day of a wedding.

Despite the hilarity of the situations the two leads find themselves in, it is a little painful to watch. There's a large amount of deliberate miscommunication and sabotage that leads to fully grown men coming out of the shower to don a frilly bath robe ("because I just went GAY all of a sudden!") - or worse, throwing rocks at important people. However, unlike other films of the same era, director Howard Hawks manages to make this succinct and cohesive. It doesn't have a dull moment or misstep. I find that many movies in the '30s and '40s tend to belabor plot points and spend too long in slow, uneventful conversation. "Bringing Up Baby" does no such thing.

Cary Grant exudes youth and age all at once with a dashingly handsome demeanor, school-boy giddiness, but an almost geriatric anxiety. His frantic shouts of "I'll be with you in a minute Mr. Peabody!" while whisked away on the sides of a car, or while escorting Susan Vance and her ripped dress out of the ballroom are delivered with comical exasperation. He commits with his entire body to his comedy with hilarious acrobatics in bursts of mania as well as blundering dialogue. He seems born for this role.

“Now it isn't that I don't like you, Susan, because, after all, in moments of quiet, I'm strangely drawn toward you, but—well, there haven't been any quiet moments.”

I have never been a big fan of Katharine Hepburn (I'm still not), and yet she and Cary Grant play off each other very well. The comedic timing and snappy dialogue is timeless. Katharine Hepburn has a voice that I famously despise, but still hearing her psycho-analyze David for "following her around and fighting with her" makes me crack a small smile. And, you know, annoying voice aside, Katharine Hepburn's wardrobe is killer.

"Bringing Up Baby" has spawned many grandchildren over the last 80 years of film-making. "What's Up Doc?" is an almost direct remake starring Barbra Streisand, Ryan O'Neal, and Madeline Kahn. It might be a stretch to call it a superior film (though I personally enjoy it more). But Baby's influence reaches far beyond to other silly comedies such as 1991's "The Freshman" (featuring a komodo dragon) or 2009's "The Hangover" (featuring 4 men and a tiger). Its influence on comedy is palpable - though none can quite compare to Hawks' masterful frantic, overlapping dialogue and sense of frantic hysteria. It's hard to believe that it wasn't a hit upon its release. Hawks, of course, went on to win an honorary Academy Award in 1974 for his creative efforts in the American film industry.

There are many hilarious moments, but maybe none more than Susan and David harmonizing "I Can't Give You Anything But Love" to a whining Baby stuck on a rooftop with confused onlooking homeowners. This is a small moment that captures the loud and vivacious hilarity of a pioneer comedy. 8/10

Other Notes:

Directed by Howard Hawks

Ranked #97 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films in 1998 and #88 in 2007

Blade Runner (1982)

It's funny watching old sci-fi movies in the Year Of Our Lord 2016 to see how far off we predicted the future. "Back to the Future II" brought flying cars and hover boards to 2015. "Fahrenheit 451" banned books, and the jury is still out on whether a nuclear apocalypse will be here in 2029 as predicted by "Terminator." "Blade Runner" zooms in on dystopian Los Angeles of 2019, which looks like an overpopulated, gothic Tokyo/Hong Kong hybrid where cars zoom through the sky. The phones may still belong in the '90s, but this fictitious future for America depicts a moody, dark ambiance that has given this cult classic its well-deserved recognition as a pilot for sci fi movies.

In this universe, the Tyrell Corporation manufactures genetically engineered "replicants" that are visually indistinguishable from humans. Their use on Earth has been banned so they work, instead, on outer colonies as slaves. Certain cops known as "Blade Runners" dispose of rogue replicants loose on earth. Harrison Ford plays ex-Blade Runner Rick Deckard come out of retirement to hunt down four replicants on the loose.

The source material, "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" poses some fascinating questions about what it really means to be human. The film noir elements and examination on morality and science make the film go beyond skin deep. It's an action film interwoven with symbolism and ambiguity and while you might not "get it" on first viewing (or fifth) it is applause worthy.

These human questions on our existence - our rights, our abilities - are the driving force that make "Blade Runner" a revelation when the rest of the movie falls short. Unfortunately, the flaws outweigh the beauty. It seems that behind all of this ambiguity and thoughtfulness, the "why" is missing. These replicants have returned to Earth to seek their maker and extend their meager 4-year life span and yet it seems of the utmost importance that they be terminated. They kill some, yes. But there is no looming apocalypse, no maniacal killing sprees, no imminent threat to human existence besides those within the Tyrell Corporation. So, why kill the replicants? Now, there are arguments that the real villain is actually Deckard, not the replicants, and I subscribe to this theory. I find it the most fascinating conclusion, but I also find the lack of clarity frustrating. It is possible to create complex, ambiguous metaphors in film with more careful crafting of the narrative.

Harrison Ford plays no Han Solo in his interpretation of Deckard. I'd go so far as to say he was miscast in this role. It's no secret that there were issues with the casting as well as disagreements between Ford and director Ridley Scott. However it's unfortunate how bored Ford seems in the role (and don't get me started on that awful voice-over in the theatrical cut). Ford is at his best when he can be charming, likable, and funny. Perhaps I'm biased by selecting someone like Bruce Willis or a young Tom Cruise because I have seen the future of their sci-fi movies like "12 Monkeys" or "Minority Report." Deckard's character is intriguing, especially if you consider that he could also be a replicant. This is the most compelling facet of the plot, however vaguely it may be alluded to. It's unfortunate this character wasn't better interpreted.As it goes with so many of these stories, our protagonist falls in love with a replicant (played by Sean Young). She doesn't know she is a replicant until Deckard tells her. While she wrestles with this reality of her existence, Deckard forces himself upon her. Now, there are arguments for Deckard helping her "come to terms" with her existence, but I cannot see anything in this scene other than rape. It is the most awkward kiss I've ever witnessed on a screen, Deckard is incredibly disagreeable as a character, and how can we just look past the fact that he raped her?? Did everyone else watch the same movie as me? If there weren't enough other things to dislike, this scene alone is a total buzzkill.

The character that does stand out is the replicant leader Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer). His character shows the emotional complexity that I would hope from a layered movie like this. The final scene between him and Deckard is the best scene in the movie. I cared far more about the outcome of his character than I did of Deckard. Darryl Hannah as Pris was also good.

The other star of the movie is, of course, director Ridley Scott. Now famous for "Gladiator," "Black Hawk Down," and others, he was then known just for his work on "Alien." He had a magnificent vision for this neo-noir resulting in SEVEN different versions of his work. S-e-v-e-n. He worked tirelessly to perfect the film without studio restrictions and preferences. I admire his tenacity and his vision for this work of art.

I watched the theatrical cut, the director's cut, and the final cut. My first impressions of "Blade Runner" (all pretty negative) stemmed from the theatrical cut which has a lot of flaws, including the hokey ending and that terrible, terrible voice-over. The Final Cut certainly is a vast improvement and I felt like I ~understood "Blade Runner" better from watching it. This version also hints more at Deckard being a replicant himself with the weird unicorn sequence. Scott himself has said that Deckard is a replicant though it isn't overtly stated in the film, and this is the most fascinating arc of all, in my eyes. Perhaps this year's "Blade Runner 2049" will shed more light on this subject once and for all.

While I enjoyed the Final Cut better, "Blade Runner" still doesn't do it for me. It belongs in a museum with its important place in history, but a mere glance will do. It's really slow and the dialogue and narrative don't live up to its potential.

There are a few key things viewers should know about this film before watching. First of all, it's really slow, and the dialogue does not live up to its potential. As far as its place on the Top 100, I believe "Aliens" and "Terminator 2" are far superior sci-fi films. 4/10

Other Notes:

Directed by Ridley Scott

Nominated for 2 Academy Awards for  Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects

Ranked #97 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films in 2008

Unforgiven (1992)

Twenty-four years after the release of “Unforgiven,” Clint Eastwood is widely recognized as a decorated director, actor, and producer. He’s also a familiar Oscar contender for movies like “Mystic River,” “Million Dollar Baby,” “Letters from Iwo Jima” and “American Sniper.” To older audiences, he is The Man with No Name of the 60’s spaghetti westerns and Dirty Harry of the violent cop movies in the 70’s and 80’s. Clint Eastwood is a cultural icon.

“Unforgiven” is the hinge. It’s the springboard. It connects the famed cowboy of the mid 20th century to the award-winning artist of the 21st. And it’s brilliant that not only is this film an artistic masterpiece, it’s a Western.

Eastwood directs and stars in the story of William Munny, famed for his cold-blooded murders of the past and now a repentant widower raising two children. He’s left his life of thievery and violence for hog farming, though it’s apparent the profession doesn’t suit him well.

The crux of the plot centers around events occurring in 1800’s Big Whiskey, Wyoming. A reward is out to kill two cowboys who disfigured prostitute Delilah Fitzgerald (Anna Levine) after a lenient sentencing from local sheriff Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman). Munny is approached by the Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett) to bring him out of retirement and partner up for one last ride. There are other characters along the road including Munny’s old friend Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) and gunfighter English Bob (Richard Harris). But everything else is a side story. The film specifically zeroes in on Munny and Little Bill.

After watching it twice, what resonated with me the most may seem surprising. Certainly the sombre tone and the epic final showdown are noteworthy, as is the layered yet subtle performance of Clint Eastwood. No, it was the actual title of the movie that seemed to pack the biggest punch. It’s the four-syllable word: Unforgiven.

Forgiveness is a noticeable theme woven in the different storylines. The women refuse to forgive the cowboys. Little Bill refuses to forgive English Bob. Though Munny was forgiven by his late wife, he couldn’t forgive himself. It’s as though he tried to believe his wife by honoring her request to abandon his life of cruelty and violence. But when push came to shove, he quickly and naturally fell back into a routine of killing and living without remorse: the guilt that haunted and overshadowed him eventually overpowered him.

In fact, there are no real heroes in “Unforgiven.” There are certainly villains. Gene Hackman, who today is far-too underrated, won an Oscar for his performance as the twisted sheriff. We want him to die, but it’s still bittersweet when it’s at the expense of Munny’s ultimate betrayal of his vow to change. It seems unfair that Munny should live for killing while Logan died for not. But this is very thing that juxtaposes Munny’s final decision to kill Little Bill and sealed Munny’s fate as a damned, unforgiven soul.

This depth sets “Unforgiven” apart from most other Westerns. It’s a Western that can be honored and remembered because it isn’t about the violence and the gunslinging (though there’s plenty of violence to be had). It’s about complex characters with hopes, fears, and hearts. The cinematography of bleak grays and browns beautifully contributes to the dark tale. I was swept by the overall mood and caught up in deeper thoughts about morality and humanity. Can we be forgiven? Do we prevent ourselves from finding forgiveness? Do people change? 9/10

Other notes:Directed by Clint Eastwood
Won Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director (Eastwood), Best Supporting Actor (Hackman), and Best Film Editing (Joel Cox). Nominated for Best Actor (Eastwood), Original Screenplay (David Webb Peoples), Cinematography (Jack N. Green), Sound, and Art Direction
Ranked #98 in AFI’s Top 100 Years… 100 Films list in 1998, #68 in 2008.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? (1967)

"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is, simply put, the story of two families overcoming their concerns of an interracial marriage in one single evening. It's certainly a drama. And yet the situation provides for undeniable comedic opportunities. Disregarding whatever genre it may be, Stanley Kramer's iconic film is a celebration of two of Hollywood's greatest stars.

When Joanna "Joey" Drayton (Katharine Houghton) comes home from her two-week vacation with the handsome, successful - and black - Doctor John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) on her arm, the engagement is met with mixed reactions. To the viewer in the 21st century, this match seems clearly promising. He's rich, they're in love, what's the big deal? However, in 1960's San Francisco, even to a liberal family this kind of news is met with some shock.

Joey's mother Christina (Katharine Hepburn) takes the news rather well after the initial surprise. With a shaky "pleased to meet you" and a wide-eyed glance at the camera, she recovers quickly after taking a minute to sit down and eagerly supports Joey's decision. This is a stark contrast to the "what the hell is going on here?" response from Mr. Drayton (Spencer Tracy).

Kramer intentionally designed Poitier's character to be so perfect and upstanding that the only possible reason to object to the marriage would be on the issue of race. And it is so easy to love Poitier. His charming demeanor, perfect smile and chivalrous character are enchanting. (As an aside, it is unbelievable that he was not nominated for this nor "In the Heat of the Night" that same year). However, it's almost as if the plot is structured like a trifle cake. With each layer, the situation becomes even more absurd and finally the absurdity overflows. Even disregarding the laughable length of their 10-day courtship (though this didn't actually bother me - I'm a Mormon and I see that all the time with my peers), the absurdity reaches its limit when the two lovebirds place a deadline on the two shocked parents. Not only do they wish approval for the engagement, but they demand approval before their 10 pm flight to Geneva. Really? You can't give them a week? A day, even?

To add to the overflow, Joey invites John's parents (Beah Richards & Roy Glenn) to join for dinner. Besides my growing dislike for the crazy situation, the scenes involving John and his parents - particularly his father - were especially bothersome. The idea that is presented in John's conversations with his father and with Joey's is that this isn't about race but about pride. It's an issue that would be interesting to explore, but sadly is manipulatively executed. The dialogue is poorly constructed and accusatorially delivered. I would have liked to have seen this film more à la style of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" which was also centered around a dinner. What "Woolf" has that "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" lacks is a building character tension driven by their interactions. The tension present in Kramer's film is manipulative and driven by absurd plot details rather than the dialogue and lacks the character development and the wit. I applaud the film's bravery for addressing a then controversial issue, but it would have been better without the artificiality behind the plot constraints.

My last complaint for this already flawed movie is in Joey's character. Perhaps it's a cop-out to label the pretty blonde as annoying but is anyone else with me on this? It's hard to stomach her high pitched voice and entitled attitude for two hours. Katharine Houghton is beautiful to be sure but her performance is too bubbly and overwhelming. I give it 2 weeks in Geneva before the distinguished Dr. Prentice ditches her.

As I stated earlier, this film is much more than a discussion on racial stereotypes. It's all about the nostalgia for two beloved stars. This is the ninth and final pairing for Hepburn and Tracy. In fact, the filming for "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" ended just 17 days before Tracy's death. It has been noted that Hepburn refused to see the final cut because it was too emotional for her (I'm going to pretend like I understand their "partnership" but really I don't. 27-year affair? Good friends?) I have tried for years to like Katharine Hepburn, and though I can find nothing faulty about her performances, there is simply something about her overdramatic portrayals that rub me the wrong way. I don't like the way she talks and I don't like that she won an Oscar for this when Anne Bancroft clearly should have won for "The Graduate."

Besides Sidney Poitier's enjoyable performance, the main attraction is clearly Spencer Tracy. I've seen a lot of Tracy's early work including his Oscar-winning performances in "Boy's Town" and "Captains Courageous." What has struck me about Tracy is the instant credibility he brings to the screen. His open countenance and striking eyes invite the audience to trust him. His performance as Matthew Drayton is no different. I felt connected to his character while he mulled over his looming decision while eating Fresh Oregon Boysenberry Sherbet at the local drive thru. Of course his performance is made more poignant with his death, and when he delivers his moving speech at the close of the film, you can't help but believe him.

Unfortunately despite my love for these two great actors, this movie is simply too unbelievable for me to truly enjoy it. 5/10

Other notes:
Directed by Stanley Kramer
Won Academy Awards for Best Actress (Katharine Hepburn), and Best Writing Original Story and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor (Spencer Tracy), Best Supporting Actor (Cecil Kellaway), Best Supporting Actress (Beah Richards), Best Director (Stanley Kramer), Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, and Best Music
It was ranked #99 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films list in 1998

Toy Story (1995)

From the get-go Pixar was something special.  They needed no practice runs.  Toy Story raised the bar to infinity and beyond for animated pictures featuring both a quality story for all ages and top notch animation.  Although Pixar does nothing but improve in the effects department from here on out, the detail here is still incredible and better than any other animated predecessor.

So Andy (voiced by John Morris) is a kid just like any other who enjoys playing with his favorite toys.  But - spoilers! - as soon as he leaves the room, his toys come alive. Our chief character and leader of the pack is Sheriff Woody (Tom Hanks), Andy’s favorite toy.  Other toys include Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), Hamm (John Ratzenberger), Rex (Wallace Shawn), and Slink (Jim Varney).  After Andy’s birthday party (a very delicate affair complete with green army dudes and Playskool walkie-talkies for a stake out) the new toy arrives. Buzz Lightyear of star command (Tim Allen) is pretty new to the toy-verse.  He still believes he’s a space ranger (“Right now, poised at the edge of the galaxy, Emperor Zurg has been secretly building a weapon with the destructive capacity to annihilate an entire planet.  I alone have information that reveals this weapon’s only weakness.” - Star Wars anybody?) but regardless his mental state, there’s no denying that this toy is slick.  He comes complete with a karate chop action arm, wings, glow in the dark capabilities, a laser, and his helmet does that WHOOSH thing.  Pretty soon Woody is no longer the bee’s knees amongst his peers and owner.  Laser envy!  Buzz and Woody’s rivalry takes them on adventures they never could have imagined in their toy dreams,  “one minute you’re defending the whole galaxy, and, suddenly, you find yourself sucking down darjeeling with… Marie Antoinette and her little sister.”

Obviously Toy Story broke ground being the first film to be completely created by computer. The animation is new, fresh, and entirely liberating from its 2-D predecessors. I mean, I can't even fathom the amount of work that went into this baby project of John Lasseter and his fantastic team. It's hard for us - most specifically my generation - to recognize how significant Toy Story is. I mean, we've been around for all of Pixar's greats. But when I watched this today, I thought about how Toy Story marked the beginning of a new era for animated movies. And that's pretty cool.

Several other things stand out, though. First of all, Pixar proved that an animated flick (or any flick) doesn’t have to be childish to appeal to kids. I enjoy Disney movies as much as the next person, but never before had an animated movie captured its audiences of ALL ages with a script so sophisticated and witty. “Hey look I’m Picasso!” “Gee, I don’t get it.” “You uncultured swine!” Toy Story marks the first animated movie to ever be nominated for best screenplay and the writing is, indeed, something to be remembered. Even more than the lines, though, is the story and the characters. 

It got us to understand what toys are all about. Every child has had a favorite toy at one time or another. And these toys are real. Real enough that they feel, think, and act but their intentions are pure and their loyalty is earnest. Our Sheriff Woody knows that true joy for a toy comes from bringing happiness to their boy Andy. It's almost like the relationship to these charming characters is reciprocal - you can FEEL how much these toys just want to love and be loved. It makes you feel like you're back safe in your childhood. This movie also deals with issues far deeper than your usual happily ever after tale.  No one wants to be forgotten or left behind. It steers clear of the traditional animated-musical format but gets those emotions pumping all the same with Randy Newman's perfectly timed soundtrack.

All of the characters are timeless and lovable but Buzz particularly stands out as the cocky space toy, er, ranger who falls with style better than anyone I know.  His character is so endearing to the audience because of his naiveté and the poignancy that comes when he finally realizes he is just a toy. That scene is just... THE FEELS. 

Though it only gets better with Toy Story 2, there’s no denying the original remains one of Pixar’s very best - as well as its most influential. It isn't getting old any time soon. 9/10 

Other notes:

John Lasseter won a Special Achievement Award for "For the development and inspired application of techniques that have made possible the first feature-length computer-animated film."

Toy Story was also nominated for Best Original Screenplay, Best Music Original Song ("You've Got a Friend in Me"), and for Best Music, Original Music or Comedy Score (Randy Newman).

Ranked #99 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films list in 2007.

Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

"My mother thanks you. My father thanks you. My sister thanks you. And I thank you."

I first saw Yankee Doodle Dandy when I was 10 years old. The older I get, the more impressed I become with how extensive my film repertoire was at that age. I have no idea how I was able to sit through some of those super old movies, (Birth of a Nation, anyone?) but whatever, I'm awesome. It's fine.

This is the George M. Cohan biopic. As his fame had died by the end of the film, so it has in American pop culture today - though most Americans would probably recognize his more famous tunes. Born on the fourth of July to two vaudeville performers Jerry (Walter Huston) and Nellie (Rosemary DeCamp) George (James Cagney) and his younger sister Josie (played by Cagney's real-life sister Jeanne Cagney) grew up performing and could dance and sing quicker than they could walk and talk. Collectively their act was known as "The Four Cohans" but it is made clear that young George was the star. He went on to be one of the most successful entertainers, playwrights, and composers in America's history. So, naturally, Yankee Doodle is the cookie cutter childhood-to-old age/rags-to-riches life sketch film told through flashbacks/voice overs. Aren't all showbiz stories told this way? One obligatory scene follows another: birth, childhood, humility period, success, failure, love, marriage, parents' death, retirement. Each scene is, of course, encased with a different grand, upbeat musical number. I guess you could say that this movie set the trend for other future '40s musicals but that's neither here nor there.

Of course, everything is also coated in shameless patriotism. Just after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 the morale boosting "Over There" and "You're a Grand Old Flag" - though originally released years earlier for WWI - were brought back to the surface in this movie to capitalize on the war-time propaganda of the '40s. However, its propaganda threat is minimal and in no way forceful. Though unplanned, I happened to watch this around our beloved country's birthday. Talk about patriotism in Independence Day and all dem Tom Cruise movies and Yankee Doodle Dandy fits the bill for one of the most American movies out there. Sure a few choice songs and well-placed flags have got audiences feeling nostalgic for the land they love but the obvious American themes and the timeliness of its release being considered, this is still just a sing and dance movie. The agenda is not pushed. You just might be able to see a little red, white, and blue poking out through all that black and white.

(This film was, incidentally, the first ever computer-colorized film released in 1986... but we don't need to talk about that).

(And again, I compare to Birth of a Nation which is one of the most propaganda-filled, racially-charged films ever and this is nowhere near that level. Don't worry, I'll get to that movie soon).

This review and re-watch of Yankee Doodle Dandy is just the beginning of a rather large project to watch all of the AFI Top 100 movies. With every movie that I review, I'm trying to look for the elements that set these films apart from others. Why were they chosen? Why should we like them? As I thought about this in regards to Yankee Doodle Dandy, I came to the conclusion that the single element that makes this movie just one cut above the rest is the star himself: James Cagney. Because honestly, besides notable historical implications and patriotic themes that obviously have influenced America this movie is nothing spectacular - besides the absolutely spectacular performance of Cagney.

In the last few weeks I have now seen three other James Cagney movies. His notable performances in White Heat (1949), Angels with Dirty Faces (1938*), and Love Me or Leave Me (1955*)  really contributed to a deeper appreciation of his talent and an increased perspective on his performance as George Cohan. I mean, it's like how I kind of think it's strange that Marlon Brando (THE GODFATHER) was ever in Guys in Dolls, so it is that Cagney - known at that time mostly for gangster roles - was a fish out of water as the singing and dancing entertainer. Though not his debut in a musical, he was still dancing in unfamiliar territory before audiences, but man is he not shy. He gives this performance his all with a unique dancing style (how do his legs even move like that?) and superbly steals every scene. I noticed this in his other films, but I especially noticed in Yankee Doodle Dandy how he demands attention every time he's on screen. You cannot help but stare at him - and nothing else. Everything about his singing, his mannerisms, his dancing, his facial expressions is grandiose and a spectacle you can't take your eyes off of.

To back this up, two particular scenes stood out to me. First, the scene early on when 20-something George meets his future wife Mary (Joan Leslie). He's made-up as an old man, but Mary is led to believe his beard, long white hair and cain are authentic and she's speaking with a respected performer of 86. Slowly George - in character as this old man - starts to move. He first stands with difficulty, but within just a few minutes he's kicking his legs higher than a ballerina and spinning around faster than a merry-go-round while Mary just gawks at him like WUTT.

Second, Cohan exits with a bang as he wraps up his life-story to Franklin D. Roosevelt of all people in the White House of all places. (As an additional historical side note, this is the first time any movie has featured an actor playing the current US President). As he exits the building, he walks down the steps. And he starts to dance. Completely improvised, done in one take, only 20 seconds long and impeccably timed to the building background music culminating the end of a story, James Cagney wasn't about to let the White House staircase best him in a scene.

You can't take your eyes off him.

Other notes:
Directed by Michael Curtiz
Won Academy Awards for Best Actor (James Cagney), Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Sound and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Walter Huston), Best Director (Michael Curtiz), Best Film Editing, and Best Writing Original Story.
It was ranked #100 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films list in 1998 and #98 in 2007.
*Cagney was nominated for an Oscar in these two films as well.

And as for my opinion, though irrelevant, I would rank it an 8/10.