Because Catching the Classics started on the podcast about a year ago, and I’ll be submitting Part 30 here in a few weeks, I decided it was finally time to go back through all my emails and voice recordings and put together a little recap post for all of you.

Now, the early days of CtC were a bit rough. I was sending in emails, whereas now I send in little voice recordings every week. (Fun fact: I usually record them in my pantry.) So, of these first 10-ish entries, the first six or so will be pulled straight from the emails I sent the Nerds — and I haven’t really edited them at all, so hopefully they’re intelligible. But, then everything from Part 6 onward will be a condensed version of whatever it is I said in my voice recording that played on the podcast episode.

I don’t have time to go back and find every single episode that these CtC iterations appeared on, but I can tell you that CtC-Part 10 was during Reel Nerds Podcast Episode 378: Water Bored (Aquaman review).

So, without further ado, here are recaps of the first 10 iterations of Catching the Classics (with Corinne!):

Catching the Classics – Part 1: Steel Magnolias

The only thing that I knew going into this movie was that it was a “chick-flick” (and I use that term lightly), and that something sad happens. Even when I sat down to watch it with my friend who’d seen it before, she suggested we get a box of tissues ready.

Overall, I wasn’t too thrilled or too bored with it. It was okay. I think I’d give it maybe a B- or C+.

I think the cast is eclectic, but talented. I thought Sally Field really held the whole movie together, and her performance in that cemetery scene was absolutely heart-wrenching. I actually liked the time-skips, and thought it was a good way to see these characters address different, but connected challenges over the course of three or four years.

There were definitely some funny moments that made me and my friend laugh out loud. And, I liked how these women were all unique enough that they didn’t feel like stereotypes or cookie-cutters. They had their own personalities and goals. 

On the flip side, I had a problem with this movie’s character structuring. I think they were trying to go for a more ensemble-type feel, except that some of the characters got more attention and development than others. And, yet, none of them seemed to get so much attention or development that any of them could be considered the main character.

I also thought the ending was a little disjointed. Annelle is about to have her baby, and they rush her off to the hospital… and that’s it? Why not go another five minutes, show us the women coming to see Annelle in the maternity ward and then do a cheesy freeze-frame with all of them huddled around Annelle as she’s holding the baby? That’s how I would’ve done it.

And, I can definitely tell that this movie was based on a play. I felt like the dialogue was really stilted sometimes, and I kept thinking to myself, “Who talks like that?” Lots of high drama in close quarters — it works in stage plays, but comes off a little melodramatic here.

Overall, as I said, I didn’t either love it or hate it. I’d probably watch it again, one of these days. And, I will say that having the box of tissues handy was a good idea.

Steel Magnolias: 3 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 2: Scarface (1983)

Now, I knew a lot more about Scarface going into the movie than I did with Steel Magnolias. I, of course, knew the famous line “Say hello to my little friend,” that it was about a cocaine kingpin in Miami, and that Al Pacino was in it.

I know it’s an incredibly popular movie, especially among men, but I personally wasn’t a fan of it.

I do think there are a lot of elements about it that are very well-crafted. I think Pacino’s performance was excellent, especially considering how much of the movie he had to carry. We saw every aspect of Tony — broken and scared, desperate and ambitious, arrogant and vicious, and soft and vulnerable.

There were also some sequences, especially toward the end, that expertly built up the tension. The scene where they’re driving in NYC stands out to me. I also appreciated a lot of the unique camera movements, which were enough to engage you but not so frequent that they annoyed or overwhelmed you.

I also thought the guy who played Manny did an excellent job and I loved Tony’s mom. She was probably my favorite character, and I wish we would’ve spent more time with her.

There were also a few moments that made me laugh out loud, to the point where parts of the movie felt like a dark comedy.

However, this movie feels incredibly long. It’s nearly 3 hours. I know that’s not as long as any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but I actually care about those characters. Here, everyone’s kind of a douchebag and I know they’re all gonna die at the end, so I’m not as invested in their journey as I am in, say, Frodo’s.

I didn’t realize the movie started with us seeing Tony after he first comes to the US and gets his start in the drug biz. I thought we were going to get introduced to him as a kingpin already. But, of the movie’s three sections, I enjoyed the middle one the most. Seeing him go from Frank’s inner circle to kingpin was more interesting than watching him go from immigrant to flunky, or watching his inevitable downfall in the third act.

Additionally, compared to today’s culture, this movie feels incredibly dated when it comes to portraying POC and handling its female characters.

I was blown away by how underdeveloped Elvira’s character is. When Tony is working for Frank, she rejects Tony multiple times and doesn’t seem at all interested in him. And yet, she ends up marrying the guy… for some reason….??? Why? Was it for his money? For the cocaine? After being so unhappy in her first marriage to a drug lord, what was she expecting would be different with another? I felt like she was just there to be arm candy.

And, Tony’s sister… I also thought his behavior toward her seemed overly creep and borderline incestual, so I’m glad she called him out on that.

Anyway, I can see why people — men, especially — seem to like this movie. It’s a modern-day adaptation of the Greek tragic hero but with a shit-ton of drugs and violence. Again, it’s not for me, but it’s definitely made an impact on pop culture and that makes it at least work checking out.

Scarface (1983): 3 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 2.5: Blazing Saddles

After watching Scarface last week, I decided to spend the accidental buffer week with Blazing Saddles.

I’m 90 percent sure I’ve seen it before, but couldn’t quite remember as it’s probably been 10-plus years.

Anyway, very good movie. It took a while to get going, as the first 20-30 minutes seemed kind of slow. But once Bart shows up to town, I think that’s where it really kicks off.

I loved how he got an opportunity to outwit his antagonists, rather than just beating them with pure brawn. It was a nice change of pace.

And I loved the ending. That fight / dance scene is hilarious, and was probably my favorite part.

Blazing Saddles: 4 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 3: Jurassic Park

Because this film is so pervasive in pop culture, I knew so much about it: all the famous lines, the major scenes, and which characters live and which die. It felt like I’d seen like half of this movie already; I just needed to watch all the stuff that’s in between the famous scenes.

Despite all that, I couldn’t believe how well this movie held my attention. I genuinely had fun. Granted, some of the tense scenes where the kids or Alan are in danger… I already knew they were going to live so a lot of that tension was gone. But it was, overall, a really good movie. (Surprise!)

The film is paced pretty well. The set-up doesn’t take too long so we can spend most of our time on these characters interacting in the park. Hell, you could probably cut out that scene where the lawyer goes to the Dominican Republic and it would work just fine.

There were maybe a few times at the end where it started to drag, but it still moves pretty well.

I also really noticed Spielbergs style in this. The camera movements. The different lighting choices, like when they turn off the power and use the flashlights. It was all really well done. Kept me engaged and helped build the tension while keeping the action going.

None of the characters seemed too bland, but neither were they complex, which is fine. It’s a two-hour action movie, so I don’t need them to be. I thought the actors did well and seemed to fit their parts. I liked Grant’s arc of warming up to the idea of kids, and Hammond’s sad realization that his park wasn’t just unsuccessful but dangerous.

I do have a few minor criticisms:

I felt like the ending could’ve been done a little bit better. They just fly off, safe and in one piece… but what about the park? What was Hammond going to do with it? I think it would’ve helped bring the themes (man vs nature) and his character development full-circle if we could’ve had a scene at the end with him saying that the park should be closed and he should’ve never tampered with nature, or something of the kind.

Also, I know the film is called Jurassic Park, and no doubt the trailers and marketing gave it away when it came out in 1993, but I wish they would’ve kept you guessing about whether there were dinosaurs. We see the scene at the beginning with the raptor and the guy getting killed and everyone’s wearing JP hats. Huh. I wonder what creatures might be in a park with a dinosaur logo on it…….? (Can you sense the sarcasm there?) Maybe just generic security guard outfits and Jeeps, etc., to keep the reveal safe until the group sees the dinosaurs for the first time.

Also, I thought Tim was pretty useless at following directions and Lex’s constant screaming was annoying.

And there are a few scenes where the effects don’t hold up, but for the most part, they still look great. And the animatronics and puppets(?) are pretty damn convincing.

Overall, I can see why so many people love this movie. And maybe I’ll never love it like they do, but I really enjoyed watching it.

Jurassic Park: 4 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 4: Unforgiven

Going into this movie, I didn’t know anything about it other than some of the cast members (Eastwood, Hackman, Freeman), that it was a Western, and that Eastwood won his first directing Oscar for it.

I do wanna say real quickly: I was raised on Westerns. More of the John Wayne Westerns than Clint Eastwood ones, but I’m no stranger to the story of the gunslinger, revenge, outlaws and general make-your-own-way attitude of the Old West.

But after watching Unforgiven…

Ho. Ly. Shit.

I feel simultaneously speechless and that I could write a freaking 3,000 word essay on how well this movie tackles so many themes and aspects. Masculinity, the morality and practicality of murder, the role of writers chronicling The West, and the role of women on the frontier.

While I won’t say much more than that, because I’m still processing everything this movie has to offer, I do want to state for the record that I would LOVE to see a prequel to this where Will is an outlaw and then meets Claudia and starts to reform himself.

Maybe I’ll feel differently in a week or two, after I’ve had a chance to think about it more… But for now, I’ll say:

Unforgiven: 5 / 5 stars

I would’ve given it that rating anyway, but the fact that most of the badass characters are from Kansas definitely helped.

Catching the Classics – Part 5: Monty Python’s Life of Brian

So, going into this movie, I knew it was a Monty Python production — obviously — and that it was a parody of Bible Epics / Passion plays. I think I had seen the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” and the conjugation/graffiti scenes.

Overall, it was okay. I really enjoyed the first half. I laughed out loud at the stoning scene, and considering I’m not one for gallows humor, that says a lot. And I laughed so hard at the “Caesar Augustus Memorial Sewer,” I had to pause the movie.

But, once it takes up the ‘Brian as the Messiah’ angle, I definitely felt there were parts of it that would be offensive to Christians. Granted, I’m sure that’s what the creators were going for, but I wasn’t a fan. Also, there were a few instances of nudity, which I wasn’t expecting, and it wasn’t really necessary. And, I felt that Pilate and Biggus Dickus’ lisp thing goes on for too long — so much so that it lost a lot of its steam. By comparison, the cleric in The Princess Bride doesn’t have as many lines and his is far more hilarious. Sometimes, in comedy, less is more.

So, yeah, kind of a mixed bag from me. As I said, there were parts of it I really enjoyed. And while it is true that there were a lot of people during Christ’s time who claimed to be the Messiah, here, I felt like they were doing it just to make fun of Christians. On the whole: I think Holy Grail is a better and funnier movie. As is Blazing Saddles, since I just watched that a few weeks ago.

Monty Python’s Life of Brian: 3 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 6: The Green Mile

Unfortunately, the ending was ruined for me, along with a few other major plot points and the overall premise. But, I still really enjoyed it, to the point where I like it better than Shawshank Redemption.

For a 3-hour movie, it doesn’t really feel like it. There are maybe a few scenes where it starts to drag and loses its momentum, but it kept me engaged and interested. When they introduce the mouse, for instance, I thought it would really start to drag, but then you start to see why Mr. Jingles is so important, and it all makes sense.

I was confused as to what John Coffee was supposed to be — an angel, an alien, or a person with superpowers. Different aspects of the movie lead you to think one thing and then others make you think something else. But, ultimately, it doesn’t really matter, and that’s what I walked away with by the end of it.

The Green Mile: 4 or 4.5 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 7: Miniseries The Thorn Birds

This is the second-most-popular miniseries of all time in the United States. Definitely a water cooler moment for folks back in the day.

Thankfully, I didn’t know too much going into it. I had seen a clip on the internet that ruined one of the bigger plot points of the latter part of the series, but there’s still plenty that I didn’t know about. It’s like a 7-hour miniseries, so there’s plenty to get through. But, because it’s a miniseries, you don’t have to sit down and watch it all in one sitting. It was actually made for the exact opposite reason. So, there’s more freedom to watching it — even though it’s longer — than there is to watching a 3-hour movie in one sitting.

Because it’s a little more obscure a quick plot summary: Set in Australia in the 1920s / 30s at the start of the miniseries, a rich elderly woman has her brother’s family come to stay with her, as they’re due to inherit the estate when she dies. The woman befriends her parish priest, who also befriends her brother’s family, particularly the daughter, Meggie. The elderly lady becomes jealous of the priest (Fr. Ralph) spending so much time with her poorer relatives, particularly Meggie, that she decides to revenge herself on them when she dies. Which she does… and then like five more hours of drama ensue.

Overall, the best part of the miniseries is the performances. The two leads are great, as is the actress who plays Mary Carson, the old lady.

Admittedly, this miniseries isn’t for everyone, but I enjoyed it. I’d probably watch it again. It does feel a bit long sometimes, but I feel like it keeps the momentum going for the most part.

The Thorn Birds: 4 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 8: The Scarlet Pimpernel (both the 1934 and the 1982 versions)

This is the grand-daddy of modern superhero films! The original book was a major influence on Zorro, which in turn was a big influence on Batman, and you can definitely see that in both of these films. A lot of the themes and motifs feel as though they’re pulled straight from The Dark Knight trilogy, when — in fact — it’s the other way around.

The overall story is about Sir Percy Blakeney, an English baronet who works to save French aristocrats during the French Revolution, and both versions have a mixture of superhero, spy, and romance elements while also being a period drama. So… you know I’m going to love it!

I watched the 1982 version first, and I like it better even though it’s an hour longer than its predecessor. It gives the audience more backstory for the main characters and SHOWS you their connections with each other — whereas, the other version TELLS you about their connections, because it’s so much shorter. Also, I think this cast gives better performances than the 1934 cast. Anthony Andrews, who plays Sir Percy in the ’82 version, really cranks up the silliness of his character to 11 during the appropriate scenes, which help contrast when he’s serious in other scenes much better. And Sir Ian McKellen is a much better Chauvelin than whomever plays him in the ’34 version.

But, the 1934 version certainly has its merit. From what I can gather through a bit of online research, I think it’s more faithful to the original novels. And, it has pretty good production value for its day; the costumes and set designs are all great. Plus, it being a black-and-white movie gives it a more classic Hollywood feel and helps to soften or highlight the actors’ features as needed. By contrast, the 1982 version seems to have very muted and muddy-looking colors.

On the whole, both are worth watching, but I would recommend the 1982 version over its predecessor.

The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934): 4 / 5 stars

The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982): 5 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Holiday Bonus: White Christmas

(I talked about this on the Bonus: A Nerdmare Before Christmas episode.)

Like Blazing Saddles, this doesn’t technically meet the criteria of a CtC film, because I had seen it before. But, it was only once during an all-night event while I was in high school, so I watched it kind of sporadically while I was sleep-deprived and hyped up on sugar.

In revisiting it, I get why people like it, but I’m not one of them. I remember not really liking it the first time either, but I figured it was because I was sleep-deprived. I still got really bored with it on the second go-around.

There are a few aspects about it that I enjoy. The cast members are all very charming, and a few of the song-and-dance numbers are enjoyable rather than meandering. And, of course, Bing Crosby is always a win!

But, on the whole, I’m not a fan. Too many of the song-and-dance numbers go on for far too long, and the characters are all a bit caricature. And, arguably, it’s not even that Christmas-y. It’s almost incidental that the plot takes place at Christmas.

As much as I like musicals, this is one of those that focus more on the dance numbers at the expense of the music and the story that I really dislike.

White Christmas: 3 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 9: The Godfather

Of all the movies on here, this is the one (and maybe Jurassic Park) is the one that had been the most hyped-up and that I had the most ruined for me simply through pop culture osmosis. I knew all the famous scenes — the wedding, the baptism/shoot-out at the end, the horse head in the bed, etc. Plus, it has a reputation of being this beloved classic. I mean, it’s #2 on the IMDB Top 250, for crying out loud! So… it had a lot to live up to. Plus, I’ve seen so many movies that either drew inspiration or directly parodied the movie or at least its iconic moments. In short: it never could’ve lived up to the hype.

So first, let me tackle what I liked about it:

All the performances are great — Al Pacino and Marlon Brando, especially. And, apparently, Robert Duvall is in this movie?! He gets the Silent MVP Award — or the Boo Radley Award, if you will — for his performance. It also has a nice feel to it. You can see that the style looks as though it’s transitioning out of Old Hollywood. It still has that graininess, dustiness and color to it that makes it seem like it’s from ‘the old country.’ And, I appreciate that it’s set more in the ’40s and ’50s, rather than in the ’70s, which is when it came out.

Now, my biggest criticisms of the movie are about its runtime and its character arcs. Michael is not given much screen time in the beginning, but is given more as the film goes on. Fine. But, the problem is that his character arc is so drastic, but the film seems to hand-wave over the most important bits of it. Michael stepped up to help his family’s “business” because his father was sick and injured, and then he went into exile and eventually lost Apollonia in the car explosion. But, then when we see him again, he’s suddenly back in the States and very involved in his father’s dealings. There are ultimately a few big scenes missing from Michael’s arc, namely when he comes back to the States after Apollonia dies. Did he want to join his father in the business? Did he feel like he needed to as a way to get revenge for losing Apollonia? Did Vito ask him to help, and Michael was reluctant? We have no idea! A lot of it is implied and not shown, making it believable but not earned.

Meanwhile, Vito gets a really good arc, because it’s gradual and organic. You can see how and why Vito starts to change from his old ways. But, the problem is, it comes at the expense of Michael’s arc. The movie should’ve spent less time on Vito and more time on Michael, or at least, Vito’s should’ve been completed earlier in the movie. That way, it would’ve given us more time to focus on Michael’s descent as he takes over more of the business. Michael’s arc isn’t as organic or at least as well-executed as Vito’s is, which is bad, considering how radical his transformation was compared to Vito’s by the end of the movie.

As for the for the runtime, this movie is 50 percent weddings, funerals and baptisms. There are several scenes that absolutely have been cut. And the longer it went on, the more frustrated I became. Why does the movie insist on showing me so many of these things that don’t matter and then it doesn’t show me the things that do matter! It’s 3 freakin’ hours long and there are still scenes missing.

It’s not a bad movie, by any means. It’s certainly an influential movie, and I’m glad I’ve seen it now. If anything, it got me to care enough that I was invested in these characters and their arcs and how they played out. It’s just frustrating that the execution was… off, IMO.

I liked it better than Scarface, but not as much as I liked The Green Mile. And, both of those are 3 hours long, just like this movie is, so I feel like that’s pretty comparable.

The Godfather: 3.5 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 10: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Overall, this movie was delightfully fun. I expected it to be over-the-top and melodramatic, and it was. And, I think the fact that I knew that going into it helped me enjoy it a lot better. I had seen some clips it of it previously, and I knew that Dracula and Mina had some weird romance — which was the only major change from the original novel. I haven’t read the entire novel, but I didn’t mind the change. It gave some reason as to why Dracula would go to England and why he would seek out Lucy and then Mina; and it gave him some complexity besides just being a monster in a Gothic horror novel.

I also find it hilarious that I ended up watching two Francis Ford Coppola-direct movies back-to-back, and I like this one a lot better than The Godfather. But, then ‘movie based on classic English literature’ is more in my wheelhouse than ‘mobster/gangster crime movie.’

The performances are great for the most part. Keanu Reeves is a little off, but I like Anthony Hopkins in a lot; and I think Gary Oldman did a great job considering he had to play a creepy weirdo with a strange accent with a faceful of a makeup for most of the movie.

So, you have to appreciate the film for what it is: artsy, fun, a little overblown, a little melodramatic sometimes. There wasn’t anything about it that I hated other than the final scene — SPOILERS — Dracula’s death, where they try to do this shoehorned-in ‘the power of love will redeem you’ thing, which didn’t land for me at all.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula: 4 / 5 stars