#52: ROCKY (1976)

THRILL SCALE 1-10

6

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Yes, but it's been a long time, probably 20 years ago or so

BEST SEQUENCE

It's tempting to pick the climactic bout between Rocky and Apollo Creed, but I'm going to go with the training montages. The final fight is well done, and it is exciting, but those training montages actually stirred the soul and gave me chills

BEST LINE

"I was nobody. But that don't matter either, you know? 'Cause I was thinkin', it really don't matter if I lose this fight. It really don't matter if this guy opens my head, either. 'Cause all I wanna do is go the distance. Nobody's ever gone the distance with Creed, and if I can go that distance, you see, and that bell rings and I'm still standin', I'm gonna know for the first time in my life, see, that I weren't just another bum from the neighbourhood."

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

92%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"This story of a down-on-his-luck boxer is thoroughly predictable, but Sylvester Stallone's script and stunning performance in the title role brush aside complaints."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"A small-time Philadelphia boxer gets a supremely rare chance to fight the world heavyweight champion in a bout in which he strives to go the distance for his self-respect."

DIRECTOR

John G. Avildsen

MAIN CAST

Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, Burt Young, Carl Weathers, Burgess Meredith

THOUGHTS

• Rocky is an enjoyable movie, and as a film it's better than the 6/10 that I gave it, but I wouldn't call it thrilling. It's actually very patient, I'd even call it quiet for the majority of its runtime. It stands to reason that what thrills we would find in a boxing movie would come from the boxing content, and by my count we see less than 15 minutes of Rocky actually boxing in this 2-hour movie. Do I wish there was more boxing? Honestly, no, not really. What we get is effective, but this is really more of a character study of a guy who gets his lucky shot at the big time. Still, while that final boxing match is certainly meaningful for the characters involved, it's hard to give this a higher thrill score based on that alone
• And so, I'm giving the edge to the spirit-lifting as opposed to the heart-pounding. Watching Rocky train for the big fight in classic montage fashion really did give me some chills. Kicking off with Rocky drinking five raw eggs (which Stallone clearly actually did, no movie magic there), running in his iconic grey tracksuit and Converse high tops (which I couldn't even imagine running in), and the wonderful shots of Philadelphia, including the famous run up the Philadelphia Museum of Art steps (which is especially meaningful because earlier in the movie we see Rocky panting and limping his way up the same steps before walking away, defeated)
• And the music! If you don't have a visceral reaction to "Gonna Fly Now," well, I don't know what to say. This may also be more common knowledge than I realize, but worth mentioning, there's no "Eye of the Tiger" to be found here - that wasn't released until 1982 and Rocky III
• As alluded to in my last review, Rocky did very well at the Oscars that year - nine nominations and three wins, taking home the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Film Editing. It was also a pretty competitive year, and Rocky won Best Picture over the previously discussed All the President's Men and the eventually to be discussed Taxi Driver, among others
• Rocky was Stallone's breakthrough role, and not only was he nominated for Best Actor, he also received a nomination for the screenplay he wrote. Looking through his filmography I was surprised by how few of his movies I've seen - I haven't seen any Rambos, and this is the only Rocky movie I've seen, and those two franchises make up a large percentage of his starring roles. He's very good in this, and Rocky is a much sweeter character than people may realize, shy and unassuming. While I haven't seen any more movies in the Rocky franchise, I do have a good idea of what follows, including the eventual fate of Apollo Creed. And so, before moving on from the tale of Rocky Balboa, I'd like to check in on him again, a little later in his life. Therefore...

Up next: We're supplementing the list again with Creed from 2015

#53: PULP FICTION (1994)

THRILL SCALE 1-10

8.5

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Yes, several times, the first time in university, probably around 2005

BEST SEQUENCE

There's no right or wrong answer here; ask me on a different day and I might give you a different response, and I really couldn't fault anyone for choosing any part of this movie. However, on this viewing, I'm going to go with the Jack Rabbit Slim's sequence, and Jules and Vincent's meeting with Brett is close runner-up

BEST LINE

Again, no wrong answer, and on a different day, different choice. This time, though, it's "Aw, man, I shot Marvin in the face." Travolta's delivery is absolutely hysterical, I laughed out loud even though I knew it was coming

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

92%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"Injecting its compendium of crime tales with the patois of everyday conversation, Pulp Fiction is a cinematic shot of adrenaline that cements writer-director Quentin Tarantino as an audacious purveyor of killer kino."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"The lives of two mob hitmen, a boxer, a gangster and his wife, and a pair of diner bandits intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption."

DIRECTOR

Quentin Tarantino

MAIN CAST

John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Harvey Keitel, Christopher Walken

THOUGHTS

• Pulp Fiction has been around for such a long time that it may be easy to forget what an impact it had. Hugely influential, the recipient of seven Oscar nominations (winning Best Original Screenplay), it was an absolute trendsetter for mid-90s cinema. A few times in these reviews I've been underwhelmed by the influential films, movies like Planet of the Apes or The Day the Earth Stood Still, finding them to be greatly surpassed by what came after, but that is not the case for Pulp Fiction. Still tremendously entertaining and quotable as all get out, it's pretty damn rewatchable
• Pulp Fiction is the only Tarantino movie on the AFI list (which means that only Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown got snubbed, since the list was finalized in 2001). Furthermore, Tarantino is the only director I can think of whose entire filmography I've seen - some only once, and some a long time ago, and some only once a long time ago (for example, I saw Death Proof, Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight all in the theatre, and I haven't seen them again since). And I have to say, I've had some good times with Pulp Fiction, and I enjoyed it again on this rewatch, and it certainly is a very good representation of Tarantino's oeuvre, but of his filmography I think it barely cracks the top 5, and that might even change if I were to rewatch some of the others. I think I would put Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds and Jackie Brown all above Pulp Fiction, and chances are I would put Reservoir Dogs above it as well
• In fact, I almost did another poll to see if there were any other Tarantino movies that I should watch and review, but I just did that for M. Night Shyamalan and I didn't feel like stretching this out too much more. So you'll have to take the above point as a loose idea of how I feel about some of his other movies
• As a point of comparison, I hate to slam you one more time, M. Night, but having recently struggled with Shyamalan's terrible stilted dialogue really made me appreciate Tarantino's skill as a screenwriter on this viewing. Tarantino's characters don't talk like real people, their lines are clever and idiosyncratic and unnatural, but man do they pull you in. For a movie with a fair amount of death and violence, it's noteworthy that some of the most enjoyable and memorable scenes are the ones that just depict two characters talking bullshit to each other ("They call it a Royale with cheese") or intimidating other people with wordplay ("What ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in What?!")
• He really, really does throw around the N-Word a lot, though, and it is legitimately jarring in a way that pulls you out of the movie and makes you think about the justification for it. I'm certainly not the first to criticize this, and Tarantino has defended himself, as have some of his actors (including frequent collaborator Samuel L. Jackson, from this very movie, and Jamie Foxx from Django Unchained), but I do consider it a difficult thing to grapple with these days (and other filmmakers have also criticized this aspect of his films, including Spike Lee)
• And to be honest, I think we're pretty much coming to the end here! In a way I feel like I didn't do a whole lot of talking about the movie itself, but I also think that's a risk of the vignette-style, non-chronological movie. There are many memorable sequences, and something to love in nearly every one of them, but then things pretty much boil down to cool things that happened and great lines that were spoken, and that's largely what my notes consisted of. The acting is great across the board (Travolta, Jackson and Thurman were all nominated for Oscars, and it was seen as a huge career comeback for Travolta and star-making roles for Jackson and Thurman), the dialogue crackles, and the soundtrack is maybe one of the best ever. However, as I feel like I've barely skimmed the surface of moments and lines that are worth mentioning, please, I implore you, add your favourites to the comments 

Up next: Another movie that was something of an unexpected Oscar darling, it's Rocky from 1972

#54: BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969)

THRILL SCALE 1-10

4

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Yes, once, fairly recently

BEST SEQUENCE

Final shootout

BEST LINE

Butch: "Kid, there's something I think I oughta tell ya. I never shot anybody before

Sundance: "One hell of a time to tell me"

- spoken at a time when Sundance would really prefer it if Butch could shoot a few guys alongside him

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

89%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"With its iconic pairing of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, jaunty screenplay and Burt Bacharach score, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid has gone down as among the defining moments in late-'60s American cinema."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"In 1890s Wyoming, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid lead a band of outlaws. When a train robbery goes wrong, they find themselves on the run with a posse hard on their heels.."

DIRECTOR

George Roy Hill

MAIN CAST

Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Katharine Ross, Strother Martin

THOUGHTS

• The script is charming even if it's not always laugh-out-loud funny, and Newman and Redford have great chemistry and charisma coming out of their ears, and the scenery and cinematography are pretty fantastic, but it's really not all that thrilling
• Getting back to the script, it was one of the first written by William Goldman, and it won him his first Academy Award (his second award would be for the previously discussed All the President's Men). Some have said that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid set the template for the buddy action comedies that we all know and love, and I can definitely see its impact on future movies, but I don't know, it leans a little heavier on the comedy than the action for me. A lot of wisecracks, and a lot of them land fairly well, but they can also distract from the thrills and the action. And in fact, not only did I find it not terribly thrilling, I even found it a little boring (and I remember feeling the same way the first time I watched it not too long ago)
• Also distracting, Burt Bacharach's music. "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head" was a huge hit at the time, sung by B. J. Thomas and written by Bacharach, and it won the Oscar for Best Original Song, and I can't stand it. In the movie it plays while Paul Newman performs some stunts on a bicycle, and I just think the whole thing is annoying. There's also a late-movie bank robbing montage that's scored with a vocal jazz group that I found pretty jarring
• Like I said, I did love the scenery and cinematography, though, a common opinion I've had with Westerns, and I also liked the way that they filmed the posse of bad guys chasing Butch and Sundance. Always way off in the distance, never seeing their faces close up, just anonymously threatening entities
• Sometimes I watch a movie that I like and I worry that I'm just being influenced by other peoples' opinions, but then I watch a movie like this, pretty universally loved and admired, and it just doesn't do it for me. Worth mentioning, though, I'm in good company. Both Siskel and Ebert were pretty unimpressed with this movie, quite early in each of their careers, and before they even started their professional partnership
• Finally, George Roy Hill teamed up again with Newman and Redford a few years later for The Sting, another movie I saw once long ago, but in contrast with my memory of watching Butch Cassidy previously, I remember really liking The Sting, and I kinda just wanted to watch that again. So I did. Without further ado...

MINI REVIEW: THE STING (1973)

I think The Sting is superior to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in basically every way, and while they're fairly different genres, I even think The Sting is way more thrilling. Butch Cassidy has a much higher body count, but The Sting has just enough murders to show us the stakes, and there's a constant threat of violence. More importantly, though, without even needing to see bodies fall and guns fire, the real thrill of The Sting comes from the plot - watching the con play out, following the twists and turns, and seeing a real bastard of a guy (intimidatingly played by Robert Shaw) get his due comeuppance. Redford and Newman are just as great, just as charismatic, and I cared more about these characters than I ever did about Butch and Sundance. And lastly, I'll take Scott Joplin's sweet ragtime over Burt Bacharach's treacly noodling any day.

Up next: It's a big one, and Quentin Tarantino's only movie on the official AFI list: 1994's Pulp Fiction

#55: WAIT UNTIL DARK (1967)

THRILL SCALE 1-10

9

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Never

BEST SEQUENCE

The last 15 minutes

BEST LINE

"I cannot negotiate in an atmosphere of mistrust"

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

96%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"Nail-bitingly tense and brilliantly acted, Wait Until Dark is a compact thriller that makes the most of its fiendishly clever premise."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"A recently blinded woman is terrorized by a trio of thugs while they search for a heroin-stuffed doll they believe is in her apartment."
DIRECTOR

Terence Young

MAIN CAST

Audrey Hepburn, Alan Arkin, Richard Crenna, Jack Weston, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Julie Herrod

THOUGHTS

• As established, the Thrill Scale is entirely unscientific, but while watching this movie I thought I should add a couple of qualifiers - a Chill Factor and a Yell Factor. If a movie gives me chills up and down my spine at any point, that deserves a bit of a bump, and same if it makes me yell out loud while watching it. Wait Until Dark got me in both ways. I'll be getting into spoilers shortly, but before that I'll just say that the whole movie definitely isn't a 9/10 for thrills, there's a bit of a slow patch after the first 30 minutes, but man, that climax really stuck the landing for me. And now, spoilers follow
• The first 30 minutes were extremely effective as an opening act, watching the three antagonists get a feel for each other, and efficiently and effectively establishing the stakes for the rest of the movie. It was also a great "show, don't tell" moment when we came to understand the level of danger posed by main antagonist Harry Roat, played by a sleazy and intimidating Alan Arkin. I don't think I've seen young Alan Arkin in anything, and before now the earliest movie of his that I've seen would be Edward Scissorhands (although to be honest, I don't remember him in that at all, so Glengarry Glen Ross might be the better answer), but he's terrific in this as a bad guy with zero redeeming qualities whatsoever
• After that we meet our protagonist Susy, played by Audrey Hepburn, and the next 45 minutes or so focus more on the "con man" side of the plot. There's a (very) steady building of tension here, and I wouldn't necessarily say I was bored, but it is the weakest part of the movie for me, and also called into question some of the logistics of this plan - namely, do we buy that Susy would be so quick to trust con man Mike after a few easily told lies? And also, sure it was fun to see Alan Arkin put on a few costumes and pretend to be different characters, but costumes don't do a whole lot for you when you're trying to deceive a woman who can't see
• Speaking of Audrey Hepburn, she's pretty good in this, especially towards the end of the movie, and this is definitely a very different style of movie from the other ones that she was well known for. She was even nominated for Best Actress, the only Oscar nomination this movie received. At times she's a little mawkish, though, and if they made the movie today I do think the subject of ableism would enter the conversation
• And finally, the movie hits its stride for me when Susy realizes that Mike isn't who he says he is, and that's when I got the spine chills. And then the situation gets more and more precarious for Susy, until we get to the showdown between her and Roat, my favourite part of the movie, and also the source of my "yell out loud" moment. This might be one of the earliest "bad guy isn't really dead" scares that I can think of
• So in conclusion, I consider this a terrifically tense movie, especially the climax, and I certainly recommend it. And, I'm in good company - in his 1981 non-fiction book Danse Macabre, Stephen King called this the scariest movie of all time

Up next: Another Western, and there won't be another one for quite a while, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid from '69

#56-B: BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)

THRILL SCALE 1-10

6.5

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Never

BEST SEQUENCE

When the Bride from her slab began to rise

BEST LINE

"To a new world of gods and monsters"

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

98%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"An eccentric, campy, technically impressive, and frightening picture, James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein has aged remarkably well."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"Mary Shelley reveals the main characters of her novel survived: Baron Henry Frankenstein, goaded by an even madder scientist, builds his monster a mate."

DIRECTOR

James Whale

MAIN CAST

Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester, Valerie Hobson

THOUGHTS

• To be frank(enstein), I was looking forward to this one, but I was kind of underwhelmed and I don't really understand why a lot of people think it's better than the original. A lot of it felt like a rehash and while there were some new things I did like (Dr. Pretorius, the titular Bride herself), the novelty of the original makes me rank it higher
• I'm also a little torn on the Monster starting to gain the ability to speak and communicate, even though this is taken from the book. While it gives him more depth, it also takes away some of the animalistic horror of the first movie
• For a character that has had such a lasting impact on horror and the general population's understanding of Frankenstein, it may be surprising for some of you to learn that the Bride of Frankenstein only comes to life in the last five minutes of the movie. Even still, I can understand why she's so memorable, and in ways that really only became apparent while watching the movie as opposed to just seeing pictures. The way that Elsa Lanchester plays her, all sudden, jerky movements and inhuman screams and hisses, really stays with you after the movie ends. And I'll admit, I also thought she was legitimately, if unsettlingly, attractive
• You'll be pleased to know that Mary Shelley finally gets her rightful acknowledgement as the author of the novel in this movie's opening credits - "suggested by the original story written in 1816 by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley". It also would have been even more noticeable if she wasn't credited, considering Elsa Lanchester actually has a dual role, playing her as a character in what I found to be a pretty clever little prologue. This is Lanchester's only official credit, though, as we also see "The Monster's Mate....?", a fun addition to the first movie's similar question mark credit of Boris Karloff as The Monster (Boris was the big draw for the sequel, though; the first credit we see is "Carl Laemmle presents KARLOFF in Bride of Frankenstein")
• Certain people get all up in arms when Frankenstein's Monster is referred to simply as Frankenstein, and as a card-carrying pedant myself, I've been pretty careful not to make that mistake. Frankenstein is the mad scientist, and the Monster is the big guy with bolts in his neck. It is fair to acknowledge, however, that this very movie does refer to the Monster as simply Frankenstein - explicitly in the prologue, and I would argue, also in the title itself. Some may say that the title still refers to the human bride of the human Frankenstein, played by Valerie Hobson in this one, but I think that's grasping at straws
• I alluded to this in my previous review, I first saw Young Frankenstein many many years before seeing either of these movies, and I rewatched it again recently. One of the greatest parodies ever made, in part because of how faithfully it recreates the look and feel of the originals, even using many of the exact same props as lab equipment
• Finally, I do want to mention that James Whale, the director of both Frankenstein and its sequel, was openly gay throughout his career, which was, as we know, incredibly rare back in the 1920s and 30s. Bride of Frankenstein has been interpreted as a distinctly queer film, and I recommend this article from Medium and this one from ScreenRant if you'd like to learn more

Up next: Another new one for me, and one that I know very little about, Wait Until Dark from 1967

#56: FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

TW: Child death

THRILL SCALE 1-10

8

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Never

BEST SEQUENCE

When the monster from his slab began to rise. The windmill finale is also very exciting and impressive

BEST LINE

"It's alive...it's alive! IT'S ALIVE! Oh, in the name of God, now I know what it feels like to be God!"

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

94%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"Still unnerving to this day, Frankenstein adroitly explores the fine line between genius and madness, and features Boris Karloff's legendary, frightening performance as the monster."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"Dr Henry Frankenstein is obsessed with assembling a living being from parts of several exhumed corpses."

DIRECTOR

James Whale

MAIN CAST

Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, John Boles, Edward Van Sloan, Frederick Kerr, Dwight Frye

THOUGHTS

• It may not be 100% necessary to compare Frankenstein to Dracula, but they're two of the earliest horror movies ever made, both released by Universal in 1931, so comparisons are going to be inevitable and I'm going to do it anyway. Frankenstein is better. Scarier, more exciting, better written, better acted, better directed. Dracula had its strong points, and Lugosi's charismatic performance as Dracula was excellent, but I agree with the AFI. Frankenstein is the better movie
• Boris Karloff is perfect as the Monster, with his sunken cheeks and heavy eyelids. He has a bluntly brutal physicality that indeed comes across as extremely dangerous; it's no stretch to believe that he's capable of killing at will, which he does several times. It's not a gory movie, and a fair amount of the violence happens offscreen, but for an older movie I was surprised by how unflinching it was; the Monster kills a little girl by drowning, and even if he did it unintentionally, the scene of the girl's father carrying her body through the streets of town was a true gut punch
• I also really liked Colin Clive as the good doctor, Henry Frankenstein (not Victor, the name from the book, which took me by surprise; apparently Victor sounded too severe and unfriendly to American audiences at the time). Clive has such a knack for playing a crazed scientist that I was a little disappointed that he became less crazed in the latter half of the movie. Speaking of crazed, I also liked Dwight Frye as Frankenstein's assistant, Fritz (not Igor, which, again, took me totally by surprise. Apparently there's no Igor in the book either, though, so that one I might have to blame on Young Frankenstein alone). Dwight Frye seemed to have found his niche in 1931, he also played Renfield in Dracula
• The sets are impressive, and the camerawork is innovative. The climax involves a windmill being set ablaze, which seemed to have been filmed by just setting a windmill ablaze - it feels legitimately dangerous, although it's then followed by a very unnecessary little lighthearted coda, I guess to give the audience a happier ending
• Finally, I haven't read the book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, but I know there's a lot to admire there - written by Mary Shelley when she was in her late teens, and published in 1818 when she was 20, it's considered one of the very first definitive examples of science fiction, and it originated the trope of the mad scientist. For such a groundbreaking work, one would hope that the credit was given where it was due, right? Well, I regret to inform you that this is what we get in the opening credits: "From the novel by Mrs. Percy B. Shelley". That's right. She was credited under her husband's name

Up next: According to some, the sequel is even better than the original, so we'll be supplementing the list with Bride of Frankenstein from 1935

#57: ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976)

THRILL SCALE 1-10

3.5

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Yes, once, a long time ago

BEST SEQUENCE

Any scene of Woodward meeting with Deep Throat

BEST LINE

"Follow the money"

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

94%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"A taut, solidly acted paean to the benefits of a free press and the dangers of unchecked power, made all the more effective by its origins in real-life events."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"The Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncover the details of the Watergate scandal that leads to President Richard Nixon's resignation."

DIRECTOR

Alan J. Pakula

MAIN CAST

Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Jason Robards, Hal Holbrook, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, Jane Alexander

THOUGHTS

• We're here to assess movies based on the thrills that they deliver, and I've grappled with this a few times - occasionally there's a difference between how effectively a movie tells its story compared to how thrilling it's even able to be. All the President's Men is an intriguing depiction of the journalistic investigation into one of the biggest presidential scandals of all time, but there's also a ceiling to how intense this sort of thing can get
• Most people have at least heard of Watergate, but just in case there are some people who don't really know what happened, here's a summary from a History.com article: "The Watergate scandal began early in the morning of June 17, 1972, when several burglars were arrested in the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate complex of buildings in Washington, D.C. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught wiretapping phones and stealing documents." And, as revealed in the movie, the Watergate break-in may have kicked off the investigation, and it gave the scandal its name, but it was much further reaching than just that one event. There was a whole series of political sabotage and espionage, that Nixon was aware of and tried to cover up, leading to his resignation
• In showing the investigation and research done by Woodward and Bernstein, though, there are a LOT of names to keep track of, and it's not always obvious which names are the important ones to keep in mind. This may have been easier when the movie came out, shortly after the scandal actually occurred, but not so much 50 years later. It is interesting to see what this sort of journalism would have been like in the 70s, though, a lot of phone calls and in-person meetings, typewriters clacking and notes taken by hand
• I mentioned it briefly just now, I found it interesting to think about the movie being made so soon after the events it was based on. Nixon resigned in August of '74, and the movie came out in April of '76. I couldn't really think of many other movies that were made so soon after the real events they were based on, aside from Zero Dark Thirty which came out one year and seven months after Bin Laden's death
• Redford and Hoffman are both quite good, but my favourite performance is from Jason Robards as Ben Bradlee the executive editor of The Washington Post. Robards gets a lot of the best lines, all delivered in his distinctive low, rumbly voice. He also won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, while Redford and Hoffman weren't even nominated
• However, speaking of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, we'll be seeing more of both of them soon. Redford will be in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, movie #54, and Hoffman will be in Marathon Man, movie #50. And, perhaps even more impressive, that's not even the only connection between these movies. The screenplay for All the President's Men was written by William Goldman, who also wrote not only the screenplay for Butch Cassidy and not only the screenplay for Marathon Man, but he even wrote the novel that Marathon Man was adapted from. This is without even mentioning all the other great movies he wrote, including two of my favourites, Misery and The Princess Bride (and also the novel The Princess Bride, while we're at it)
• Finally, as a depiction of journalistic investigation based on true events, I kept being reminded of some other more recent movies, especially Spotlight and The Post. The Post, in particular, has strong echoes of All the President's Men, which is pretty understandable considering they're both about investigations at the exact same newspaper, and even with Ben Bradlee as a primary character, played by Tom Hanks in the later movie

Up next: Just like when I watched Dracula, I'm excited to watch another classic monster movie from 1931 that I've never seen - it's time for Frankenstein