Matt and Francesca discuss the latest Marvel superhero franchise flick, Thor starring Chris Helmsworth and Natalie Portman.

 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD: Cinematrimony - Thor

 

Note: Back to the Movies is a special feature on the FilmNerds blog in which Matt Scalici will be watching the Top 50 highest-grossing movies of 1983 in order from 50 to 1.

Comedy is tricky territory when taking on films from another era. While it certainly is possible for comedy to stand the test of time and remain equally funny to subsequent generations, I don’t think it’s necessarily a judgment on a film to say that it doesn’t affect audiences in the same way on the day it’s released as it does 30 years later.

There are lots of different ways to make people laugh and one of those ways involves being right on top of a highly relevant social or political issue. Timely comedy is important and can make people laugh by allowing them to make light of something bad going on in the world around them. Timely comedy does, however, have a tough time remaining fresh as the years go by. Looking at the highest-grossing comedy of 1983, John Landis’ Trading Places, it’s clear that in ’83, audiences responded to comedy about the current conditions of the world at the time. Going down the list of our Top 50 countdown, the comedies that stand up best today, by and large, don’t show up very near the top (with the exception of National Lampoon’s Vacation). The highly nostalgic A Christmas Story is quite possibly the most well-known film comedy on this countdown today in 2011 but barely made a blip at the box office in 1983. Others on the list that I think would be particularly well-received today include the Rodney Dangerfield vehicle Easy Money and Richard Pryor’s standup comedy film Here and Now, neither of which cracked the Top 25.

Trading Places had quite a lot going for it to help make it the most successful comedy release of the year. For one, the release was perfectly timed by Paramount, opening opposite Superman III and at a time when the rest of the nation’s screens were still being taken up by the behemoth that was Return of the Jedi. The only other comedy released in remote proximity of Trading Places was Steve Martin’s offbeat entry The Man with Two Brains, which despite scoring big with critics didn’t finish in the Top 50 in 1983.

That’s not to say Trading Places succeeded just because it was the only game in town. Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy were easily two of the hottest young names in comedy in 1983. After leaving Saturday Night Live in 1979, Akroyd quickly established himself as a rising film comedy star with The Blue Brothers film in 1980. Murphy meanwhile was still at the height of his popularity on SNL though he too had begun the transition to full-on movie star after the huge success of 48 Hours in 1982.

 

While the screenplay for Trading Places was initially envisioned as a project for Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor, the unavailability of Pryor led to Murphy landing the role of Billy Ray Valentine and out of a desire to avoid looking like he was trying to become “The Next Richard Pryor”, Murphy requested that producers re-cast the part of Louis Winthorpe, the over-privileged white commodities broker. Akroyd has always been notable for his plasticity as a comedy actor, which I’m sure is a big reason he was chosen as one of the founding members of Lorne Michaels’ sketch comedy troupe, and here he showed audiences that the man who played the epitome of cool, calm and collected in The Blues Brothers could just as easily pull off uptight and neurotic.

Murphy was a known quantity by 1983 but still hadn’t quite gotten the message out to mainstream American audiences that he was a man of many faces and voices. Billy Ray as a character is rather similar to the confident, quick-witted Reggie from 48 Hours but here Murphy gets a few opportunities to show off his ability to inhabit multiple roles within the same movie, something he would become known for and indeed something that became expected of him as his career went on. In the scene below, we see Murphy begin to play with the concept of inhabiting alter egos in his film roles and giving the audience not just one but multiple performances to chew on.

The premise of the film is two-fold: the first half of the film is a rather interesting social parable involving two wealthy commodities traders (Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche) who are having the classic argument about Nature vs. Nurture. To settle the argument, the two decide to swap the life roles of two men, one being their well-bred and wealthy protogé Winthorpe (Akroyd) and the other a street urchin and con-man named Billy Ray Valentine (Murphy). The argument for Nurture seems to win out as Winthorpe falls to pieces without all the advantages of wealth while Billy Ray becomes an overnight success at the commodities firm.

It’s at that point that the film switches gears and becomes a film not about that philosophical argument anymore but essentially about the two heroes getting revenge on the rich old villains who used them as guinea pigs. This half of the film as a premise feels a lot less thoughtful and a lot more geared around rather unoriginal and tired jokes involving bad things happening to the bad guys including, in the case of the right hand man of the two Duke brothers, being violated by a gorilla. Har har.

The movie certainly has its moments, most of them coming from simple performance touches by Murphy and Akroyd. At the absolute low point of Winthorpe’s downfall, Akroyd sneaks his way into the company Christmas party dressed as Santa Claus to plant drugs in Billy Ray’s desk but before he does that he decides to stop by the buffet to grab some much-needed free food. The ensuing scene of Winthorpe drunkenly stuffing smoked salmon through his beard is hilariously pathetic.

(Apologies for the low quality clip – it’s the best I could find)

The film concludes with a rather confusing scene involving Winthorpe and Billy Ray somehow tricking the Duke brothers into losing millions of dollars in the frozen concentrated orange juice market. It’s still unclear to me as to what is actually happening (even Murphy has admitted in interviews that he didn’t understand what he was supposed to be doing in the scene) but I guess it’s sufficient to know that the Duke’s lost money in the end and the heroes got their revenge.

The film was overwhelmingly praised by critics in 1983, including a glowing review from Roger Ebert as well as high praise from Janet Maslin of The New York Times who called Trading Places the film that Preston Sturges might have made “if he’d had a little less inspiration and a lot more money.” That’s extremely high praise for John Landis as a director but also for writers Timohy Harris and Herschel Weingrod who went on to co-write such mega-successful comedies as Brewster’s Millions, and Kindergarten Cop in the years that followed.

It’s clear that Trading Places was an undisputed comedy hit in its day and that it remains so in the minds of many who saw it then. Watching it now, I find it to be light on laughs in comparison to what most audiences today expect of their film comedies. That’s not to say it’s not a smart film or a film with no laughs – just to say that if you showed this film in 2011 to an audience full of people who had never seen it before, I don’t believe the laughs would be very frequent, at least not as frequent as you’d hear in a typical contemporary comedy hit. That probably says a lot more about the way comedies are made today than it does about the quality of Trading Places as a film but it’s still worth noting. As I mentioned at the start of this review, I believe comedy is a very temporal and fast-moving animal and it’s rare to ever find a comedy that remains funny to audiences more than a few decades separated from it. Trading Places is a good movie but I’m not totally sure the laughs hit as hard today as they did in 1983.

 

DOWNLOAD: Back to the Movies Podcast – Trading Places (with guest Jason Roche)

 

Next Up: Jennifer Beals and Cynthia Rhodes star in the iconic dance movie Flashdance.

Inspired somewhat by this list from Den of Geek, I’ve been ruminating the specific sub-genre of “Pure Action”. Action cinema comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes, most often these days in the form of science fiction. Now, I’m as big of a sci-fi nut as the next nerd, but there’s something to be said for the roots of action movies: stunt-laden, high octane movies featuring shoot-outs, fist-fights, car chases, and really, really, really unreasonable amounts of explosions.

 

So, what is a “pure” action film?

Rules:

• Minimal Obvious Computer Enhancement. It’s rare to impossible to find a film made in the last fifteen years that hasn’t benefited some what from computer compositing or imaging, but I think my meaning is clear here.
• A Minimum of Three Action Scenes. Any good thriller has at least one scene of pace and suspense, so a relentless onslaught of activity has to be a qualifier for “action”.
• A Modern Setting, Relative to Time of Production. This excludes sword-and-sandal epics, Westerns, and samurai movies. So, no Buster Keaton’s The General, no Seven Samurai, no Stagecoach.
• No Overtly Supernatural, Science Fiction, or Fantasy Elements. In addition, excluded are some of the big guns: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, King Kong, The Matrix. This is getting trickier.
• No Sports Movies or War Movies. A pure action movie has to rest on chaos, and in addition to the fact that most war movies are also period pieces, there’s just a difference between organized combat and consequential combat.

So, with the rules set, here are 45 of my favorite pure action movies. Now, this list was compiled as much to find my own weak spots as it was to reminisce about all those pretty explosions.

You’ll find a dire lack of the following sub-genres, many of which are the ancestor of the modern action movie, all born in the 70’s:

I’ve not seen an awful many exploitation or grindhouse movies like Shaft, Walking Tall, or Death Wish. The same goes for the martial arts sub-genre, which shows off some of the most fantastic stunts in action cinema history. (Example: Rumble in the Bronx, Supercop). I’m also light on 70’s car movies like Two Lane Blacktop and The Driver, although there are a few glaring entries in there. This might be a good time to mention to any of my fellow Film Nerds that I’d love to record a series on any of these sub-genres to help pad my viewing resume a bit. (Ahem, after the premiere of The Nocturnal Third, of course.)

Some other big weaknesses are the early filmography of Tony Scott and the Jack Ryan series, both of which contain movies I saw numerous times in my youth, but come up hazy in my memory.

Let me know what I left out, what I should see, and where I’m just plain wrong!

So, without further ado, and in chronological order:

 

North by Northwest (Alfred Hitchcock, 1959)
The granddaddy of them all. Combining a fantastic score, relentless pace, and tropes that would leak their way into every action movie you’ve ever seen, this descendant of Hitchcock’s original Thirty Nine Steps has everything. I’ve been meaning to pick up that much-lauded blu ray. Not my favorite Hitchcock movie, but I can’t deny its importance.

Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton, 1964)
I purposely left out numerous Bond films, but this is one that absolutely had to be included. Goldfinger took what we saw in North by Northwest and the early Bond films and turned up the testosterone, peril, and fantasy.

Thunderball (Terence Young, 1965)
Again, a textbook example of the escapist thrills of the middle years of Connery’s Bond.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Peter Hunt, 1969)
…And here we go, as the Bond franchise changes things all around for at least the second time in its franchise history. Utilizing a frenetic, New Wave editing style, Peter Hunt gives George Lazenby’s sole Bond film a choppy style reminiscent of Arthur Penn or, dare I say, Godard himself. Hate shakey cam? Blame Lazenby’s 007 film. I, for one, love this movie, and find it to be among the most entertaining and exciting Bonds.

 

Duel (Steven Spielberg, 1971)
Spielberg’s entry into the carsploitation sub-genre is teetering on being more of a thriller than an action movie, but its exciting chase sequences and scenes of destruction make it apt.

The Spy Who Loved Me (Lewis Gilbert, 1977)
Probably the best example of the “classy” Roger Moore 007 movies, this features one of the series’ more recognizable stunts (Union Jack parachute) and cars (Lotus Esprit). This entry is kind of a catch-all for the 70’s Bond films that were being influenced by the quickly evolving action genre.

 

First Blood (Ted Ketchoff, 1982)
You won’t see any other Rambo films on my list, not because they don’t follow the rules, but because I don’t like them. This first film is wholly original, suspenseful, and moody, while the others are indulgent in a charmless way. They could have used more of the wit put on display in…

Commando (Mark Lester, 1985)
Truly, a bad movie. And yet this, basically a Saturday morning cartoon version of the 80’s action extravaganza, manages to excite and entertain.

A Better Tomorrow II (John Woo, 1987)
This is where everything seemed to change. John Woo injects an overwrought air Shakespearean melodrama into a genre steeped in machismo and bristle. An amazing, incredibly violent closing sequence takes this sequel to action heights only hinted at in the original film.

The Living Daylights (John Glenn, 1987)
A wonderful, classy holdover from the more breathable 70’s Bond films, Timothy Dalton’s debut features a handful of really fun chase sequences, as well as one of the great Bond stunts: two guys fighting on a giant net, dangling out of an airplane’s cargo hatch.

Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988)
The perfect “pure” action movie. An exquisite balance of dire stakes, menace, wit, and intensity, no one’s been able to top McTiernan’s original.

The Killer (John Woo, 1989)
John Woo’s action bromance is a bit much for me. While I prefer A Better Tomorrow II and his upcoming ‘92 opus, The Killer still has its fair share of awesomeness.

Lethal Weapon 2 (Richard Donner, 1989)
The first Lethal Weapon hasn’t stuck in my memory, so it gets left out here. Regardless, I think it’s widely accepted that its sequel is more action-packed and intense. It really is the showcase of the whole series.

 

Hard Boiled (John Woo, 1992)
Probably John Woo’s masterpiece. Things start to get a little dodgy with some of the most outrageous action scenes you’ll ever seen… in my estimation, the root of today’s Looney Tunes action movies. Regardless, Woo manages to keep things under control in what I consider to be his best movie, its climax featuring an audacious and amazing long take.

The Fugitive (Andrew Davis, 1993)
Deceptively simple, this might be the textbook 90’s action movie, alongside Speed. It’s got all the essentials: an everyman hero, lots of momentum, and well-constructed scenes of clearly communicated suspense.

The Professional (Luc Besson, 1994)
Quite possibly a cheat, as Luc Besson’s film really does hold much of its action for the end sequence. However, it must be included to acknowledge the hard work the French have been doing to keep the action genre alive since the early 90’s. I could argue against the quality of the European pure action output, but at least they’re trying. The U.S. has all but abandoned the genre.

True Lies (James Cameron, 1994)
The ultimate Arnold Schwarzenegger experience. James Cameron pulls out all the stops and publicly confronts his frustrations with the James Bond character, resulting in a fun, hopeful, and bombastic action classic.

Speed (Jan de Bont, 1994)
Sometimes things just line up perfectly some times. On paper, in the year 2011, the combination of Bullock, Reeves, de Bont, and writer Graham Yost should not compute. And yet, here we have a relentless action movie that probably should have been the basis of Die Hard 2. Fantastic stunts and set peices, a compelling gimmick, and believable characters make Speed worth re-visiting.

Desperado (Robert Rodriguez, 1995)
This is most likely Rodriguez’ best film, a stylish cross between the spaghetti western and Hong Kong actioners.

Die Hard With a Vengeance (John McTiernan, 1995)
They just don’t make them like this anymore. From the get-go, McTiernan’s return to the Die Hard franchise is fast, funny, and controlled. Willis and Jackson have fantastic chemistry, and the gimmick is perfectly woven into John McClane’s curse. Turn this on and watch the time fly by.

GoldenEye (Martin Campbell, 1995)
Setting up a precedent that was almost impossible to follow, Campbell and Brosnan re-invented James Bond perfectly for the 90’s. Aside from laughable femme fatale and a dated score, this is one of the greats in the series. There are too many fantastic sequences to list, but my favorite might be the utterly destructive tank chase.

The Rock (Michael Bay, 1996)
This bombastic free-for-all could best be described as a “greatest hits” album for action scenes. If you can imagine the action movie trope, it’s in this film, Michael Bay’s best. Still the arguable king of the Bruckheimer catalog, the slickness and clarity and melodrama of this thing just carries you along. It doesn’t hurt to have funny, legitimate performances from Connery and Cage.

 

Eraser (Chuck Russell, 1996)
Probably Arnold Schwarzenegger’s last good, fully rounded action movie, this almost gets disqualified for its sci-fi weaponry and CG effects, but it gets a pass for grit. Freakishly re-watchable, Eraser has several highlights, one of which being Schwarzenegger managing to survive a fall from an AIRPLANE.

Mission: Impossible (Brian DePalma, 1996)
At times absurd and posturing, but predominantly taught and moody, this is probably the movie on this list I’ve seen the most number of times. Brian DePalma, apparently the only human on earth with the ability to properly adapt a television show for the screen, crafts the consummate “high tech” action thriller of the 90’s. The Langley sequence had a lot to do with my burgeoning interest in filmmaking (aside from the rat of DOOM), and the film’s bombastic finale is the stuff summer is made of.

Con Air (Simon West, 1997)
This might rival The Rock as Bruckheimer’s apex. This hilarious and freakishly destructive thing is just too much fun to take your eyes off of. I remember eagerly anticipating this during the Summer of 1997, as Trisha Yearwood sang us all to the box office window to slap down our hard-earned money. The key to this film is conviction, and every performer seems to have been bitten by the bug. They’re all on the same page, and that page just exploded.

Face/Off (John Woo, 1997)
Who could have ever predicted that Nicholas Cage would have come as close as he did to being an action icon? Alas, this is his last passable action movie, and it does not age well. Despite having some incredible thrills, the film has all the sap and kitsch of Con Air, and none of the wit. Not only does Cage go completely off the rails as Sean Archer, but Travolta is kind of embarrassing as both his characters. Great gimmick, though, and again- fantastic action of the sort we really never get anymore.

Tomorrow Never Dies (Roger Spottiswoode, 1997)
This underrated Bond film suffers from a ridiculous villain performance, but contains some of the Brosnan era’s best stunts and action scenes. Not only that, but the film is allowed to get a bit personal, introducing a secretly -and obviously- pregnant Teri Hatcher as a flame from Bond’s past. That little subplot takes the movie to surprising levels of cold-hearted awesomeness.

Ronin (John Frankenheimer, 1998)
I desperately need to re-watch this cold, car-chase ridden thriller from the late nineties. I almost forgot to include it, but I remember enough to know it should be on here.

Lethal Weapon 4 (Richard Donner, 1998)
The (hopefully) final entry in the Lethal Weapon series is, in my opinion, sort of underrated. Featuring several mind-blowing action sequences and a fairly strong turn from villain Jet Li (in an early American appearance), the movie also gets the family dynamic right, which was a miss in the lackluster third movie.

 

The Way of the Gun (Christopher McQuarrie, 2000)
Fiendishly underrated, the first and only feature by Valkyrie and Usual Suspects screenwriter McQuarrie is a real gem. Featuring an ugly, awkward, and thrilling shoot-out, as well as several other gritty, yet clear sequences, the movie knows what it is and works hard for its stripes.

The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman, 2002)
It took a lot of convincing for me to be on board with Matt Damon’s action debut, but the proof is in the pudding. A fantastic car chase, an amazing sniper sequence, and a handful of raucous fight scenes earn this movie a lot of respect.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (Robert Rodriguez, 2003)
Cheap, fast, and kind of shoddy, this is the rare Rodriguez “flick” that actually works. A big cast, a busy storyline, and plenty of slick action distracts the viewer enough from some absurd and sloppy sore spots.

The Rundown (Peter Berg, 2003)
Colorful, silly, and loud, this underrated action comedy came and went without much fanfare, but it deserves a second look. The Rock has yet to really become the action star he seemed destined to become after this movie, but there’s still time.

Kill Bill: Volume 1 (Quentin Tarantino, 2003)
Its modernity (right?) makes it the catch-all for all the kung-fu movies that are sorely missing from this list. Indulgent and self-centered he may be, but you cannot deny that Tarantino knows how to stage a fantastic action set piece, with clear stakes and motivations.

The Bourne Supremacy (Paul Greengrass, 2004)
One of the best examples of our current action movie landscape, this change of tone for the Bourne series is in a league all its own. Cold, brooding, and, well- shaky, Greengrass’ action debut (as well as its sequel) make a strong case for a shooting style that isn’t very well supported by any other movie.

Collateral (Michael Mann, 2004)
Another potential cheat, as it really saves its two extended action sequences until its climax. You’ll notice that Mann’s Heat is missing from this list. Perhaps it should have been included, but this film has a much higher action-to-dialogue ratio. Regardless, this is Mann’s most underrated film, a slick and straight-forward thriller with an amazingly chaotic night club shootout.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (Doug Liman, 2005)
I’m actually having a hard time recalling a lot of this action comedy, but I do remember quite an awesome car shoot-out towards the end, and a pretty intense fight scene in there somewhere. Say what you will about the movie’s bizarre ending and severely annoying gossip fodder, Liman can bring the goods when he really wants to.

 

Mission: Impossible III (JJ Abrams, 2006)
Slick, fast, and twisty, this underrated entry in an underrated franchise redeemed the whole shebang after a shampoo commercial-inspired misstep from John Woo in 2000. Although the film still smacks of a Tom Cruise vanity project, the plot gives a major ending moment to a secondary character, and members of the IMF team have their share of time in the limelight, as well. Overall, a fantastic and dynamic action movie from J.J. Abrams.

Casino Royale (Martin Campbell, 2006)
Quite possibly the best pure action movie of the decade, Campbell’s return to the series trades a hectic pace for nicely revealed tension, paid off by bombastic action. From a wise and restrained use of the already-tired parkour trend (lifted from the fun sci-fi actioner District B13) to a sickeningly tense progression of chase sequences during the middle of the movie, Campbell keeps things classy with long stretches of character development, tone, and plot, before tying everything up in a solid action finale.

Death Proof (Quentin Tarantino, 2007)
I’m definitely cheating to get Death Proof in here, as it really only has one big action set-piece. However, that set-piece is so amazing, and lengthy, that it had to be included. While a handful of the film’s performances and line deliveries do fall flat, the film is a very entertaining slow-burn, with a payoff that makes the rest all the more worthwhile.

Live Free or Die Hard (Len Wiseman, 2007)
A divisive choice, for sure. Despite its odd tone, unclear physics, and heavy reliance and composites, Wiseman kind of shut my mouth with some fantastically staged action scenes. The Hollywood Saloon might describe this as more of a bad pilot for the Die Hard TV show than a movie fitting of its canon, but I think it does have some very tense, cinematic sequences.

The Bourne Ultimatum (Paul Greengrass, 2007)
The final Bourne chapter is one of the best modern action movies, and – to be honest – one of the biggest perpetrators of the trend that has gone a long way in killing the genre. Despite its herky-jerky camera work, the movie’s action scenes are pleasantly easy to follow and, above all else, involving.

JCVD (Mabrouk El Mechri, 2008)
Kind of a stretch, as this really much more of a drama than an action film, but its action scenes are fantastic, and clearly staged. Plus, it gets points for ruminating on one of the genre’s fallen soldiers.

Transporter 3 (Olivier Megaton, 2008)
I did not make up that director’s name. The fact that a Transporter film is on the list might be a sign of our times, but I’ll admit that this movie stands out from its glossy series because of a wonderfully natural gimmick. The first two entries in the series are not bad, but Transporter 3 I find underrated and more accessible. This is representative of the newest sub-genre of action movies: the Looney Tunes action movie, combining slapstick comedy, audacious CG stunts, and sophomoric shock to keep male adolescents entertained. To be honest, I’m not a fan of movies like Crank, Shoot-Em-Up, and the rest, but I won’t discount the whole movement just yet. Statham’s output seems to be worthy of some attention.

Fast Five (Justin Lin, 2011)
Now, I didn’t see The Expendables, so maybe I missed out, but it seems like this strange specimen is the modern-day torchbearer of “pure action” Featuring three fantastic action sequences that are clear, imaginative, and fun (and one hard-to-follow fight scene between Rock and Diesel), I was shocked at how much I enjoyed the fifth entry into the “Fast and/or Furious” franchise. Big kudos to director Justin Lin, who clearly has an appreciation for “pure” action.

 

So, what’s next? It seems studios aren’t much interested in practical stunts and real explosions, but who knows? Maybe there’s hope, not just from foreign and indie filmmakers, who are armed with ever-cheaper equipment. Looking forward, it seems Steven Soderburgh has a little action movie he’s been working on. Brad Bird, who staged some fantastic sequences in The Incredibles, will most likely perpetuate the Mission:Impossible series’ straight-forward action. If nothing else, this list has proven to me that I’ve got plenty of movies left to watch, so hopefully my adrenaline will never have to drop to a healthy level of human operation.

Like I mentioned, hit me up with stuff I missed, stuff I should see, or stuff I messed up.

The FilmNerds crew is back once again with FilmNerds Recommends, our monthly feature where we do our sacred duty as film geeks by telling you which movies we think are worthy of your valuable home entertainment time. March is truly a dry season when it comes to new releases in theaters with studios dumping off their least promising projects before the summer season gets rolling. This month, as we occasionally do, the FilmNerds crew has chosen four of the month’s big releases and given you alternative choices that offer a more satisfying variation on the same theme. Every FilmNerds recommendation is currently available on Netflix so if you see a pick you like, simply click on the DVD cover art to link straight to the movie’s page on Netflix.

 

Mythology-Based Action (Instead of Thor)

Ben Stark’s Pick – The Twelve Tasks of Asterix (1976)

I would love to recommend Disney’s HERCULES here, but I would be doing so for its musical numbers alone. The movie, overall, is not very strong. I will, however, recommend another animated features, this one guest-starring the Roman Pantheon: LES DOUZE TRAVAUX D’ASTERIX, or THE TWELVE TASKS OF ASTERIX. Probably the best of the Asterix films, this one is not an adaptation of any of the comic, but rather an original story.

Corey Craft’s Pick – Hellboy (2004)

I can’t think of an answer to this question, so I’ll just say HELLBOY. That had to do with mythology, right? Didn’t HELLBOY 2 have elves in it or something? There was that magic tree guy in that movie, too? A troll? I don’t know. Either way, Guillermo Del Toro’s monster-laden, Lovecraft-influenced, fantastical duo of superhero movies are great fun, visually stunning and just plain entertaining, with a delightful undercurrent of subversive horror weirdness just barely beneath the surface. It pains me that there’s no HELLBOY 3 in the immediate future.

Ben Flanagan’s Pick – Troy (2004)

Rarely would I ever recommend either Joel and Ethan Coen’s hilarious but overstuffed O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU (2000) or Wolfgang Peterson’s just stuffed TROY (2004), but you won’t find anything better from the canon of mythology-inspired cinema. While O BROTHER has some exciting moments, it doesn’t qualify as an action movie, so we’ll go with Peterson’s LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE “Iliad” adaptation starring Brad Pitt (abandoning Darren Aronofsky and THE FOUNTAIN for this) as the mighty jerkwad Achilles. Let’s ignore the gaudy sap and mercilessly dreadful dialogue (“IS THERE NO ONE ELSE?!”) and focus on the mostly thrilling swordfighting sequences, highlighted by the showdown between Pitt and Eric Bana, as the tragic Hector. It’s the best you’re gonna do.

Graham Flanagan’s Pick – First Knight (1995)

The legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Roundtable spawned dozens of cinematic adaptations, and surely many more to come. One that falls under the radars of many cinephiles is the 1995 box-office underachiever FIRST KNIGHT. After building his career around classic “spoof” comedies like AIRPLANE! and THE NAKED GUN, director Jerry Zucker successfully transitioned to “serious” filmmaking with the blockbuster GHOST in 1990. His next film was FIRST KNIGHT and it failed to score both with critics and audiences. I, however, have a fond memory of seeing it during its initial release. It features a stellar cast and an epic scope, punctuated by romance, humor and excellent battle sequences. Hopefully via tv airings and Netflix, this 90s gem will finally get the respect it deserves.

Craig Hamilton’s Pick – Troy (2004)

I’ve never admired another man’s body like I admire Brad Pitt’s in Troy. In fact, I just recently removed the Troy poster from the inside of my closet door on my way out. This film is great if you’re looking for an action-packed, chariot-riding, sword-wielding experience full of violent and well-choreographed battle scenes. Unlike many of these types of films today, Troy isn’t saturated with special effects nor was it converted to a 3-D format during post-production. This gives it a more authentic feel. It’s got a great cast and a fairly strong script. As an added bonus, we get to see a rather sensitive Orlando Bloom humiliated on the battlefield. There’s also an underlying love story there for the ladies. Brad Pitt plays the unstoppable Achilles who pwns his way through giants and warriors with graceful ease and well-earned cockiness. He’s both a warrior and a ladies man. He is the called-upon savior of the Greeks and they fully realize that you don’t win unless Achilles fights for your side. Troy is based on Homer’s The Iliad and the cinematography, art direction and costume design are strong. Most importantly, it’s a lot of fun.

 

Female-Driven Comedy (Instead of Bridesmaids)

Ben Stark’s Pick – Waitress (2007)

WAITRESS is one of the most underrated comedies of recent years. The last film by Adrienne Shelley before her tragic death, this is the rare modern romantic comedy that doesn’t pander and isn’t annoying. Check it out for awesome performances by Keri Russell and Nathan Fillion.

.

Corey Craft’s Pick – Broadcast News (1987)

WAITRESS is a damn good pick! And it’s depressing I can’t really think of many female-driven comedies to choose from — there are a couple well-regarded movies I don’t really like (like LEGALLY BLONDE), a few movies that were good enough but not memorable (like THE HOUSE BUNNY, starring Anna Faris), and movies that are just flat-out terrible (like pretty much anything Kate Hudson’s the lead in, up to and including this year’s SOMETHING BORROWED) — so let me reach way back and highlight a film by James L. Brooks, who at one point knew how to write for women (not so much in his film HOW DO YOU KNOW, from last year), and proved it by crafting Holly Hunter’s best role ever in BROADCAST NEWS.

Ben Flanagan’s Pick – Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion (1997)

Would hate to give to an alternative to Kristen Wiig’s own hilarious female-driven comedy, but rules is rules, so let’s roll with ROMY AND MICHELE’S HIGH SCHOOL REUNION (1997), starring Mira Sorvino and Lisa Kudrow. Another R-rated romp that could go toe-to-toe with any guy-oriented laffer in the 90s, this highly original and intelligent fairytale depicts a pair of dweeby BFFs who conjure up lie after lie about themselves in preparation for their titular high school reunion. Kudrow, at the peak of her “Friends” run, kills it with her ditzy sarcasm, while Oscar-winner Sorvino hangs every step of the way. Janeane Garofalo and Alan Cumming give silly supporting performances, too. But, still, see BRIDESMAIDS.

Graham Flanagan’s Pick – Tiny Furniture (2010) (currently not available on DVD)

America will soon become much more familiar with actress & auteur Lena Dunham when her Judd Apatow-produced HBO comedy GIRLS premieres at some point in the next year. She got this opportunity based on the deserved acclaim generated by her tour-de-force coming out party TINY FURNITURE, which stirred up big buzz on the indie scene in 2010. One of the best movies of that year, it also showcases Dunham as a fearless actress with talent that covers the entire dramatic spectrum.

Craig Hamilton’s Pick – Waitress (2007)

This time of year I usually save my movie-goings for the big summer blockbusters. The smaller scale films I save for Netflix so by the time Oscar season arrives I can blow all my cash on the films that I need to see. So, if you’re like me and need to fill the void that not going to see Bridesmaids has caused, then you might check out the delightful independent film, Waitress. It stars Keri Russell who plays a pregnant, pie-making waitress who deals with an abusive relationship. Waitress isn’t as full-blown a comedy as Bridesmaids. In fact, it is a funny and light-hearted film that easily gets dark when it needs to. Adrienne Shelly (now deceased) both acted in and directed this film. It also stars Nathan Fillion, Cheryl Hines and the great Andy Griffith. Waitress easily made my Top 10 of 2007 and I suggest that everyone see this film.

Matt Scalici’s Pick – Dick (1999)

It’s easy to dismiss what looks like a whacky comedy about two ditzes inadvertently becoming involved in the Watergate scandal but this Nixon-era comedy features two really nice comedic performances from Kirsten Dunst and Michelle Williams as well as a solid Nixon impression from Dan Hedaya. While it’s not absolutely necessary to be a political buff to enjoy this movie, there are enough clever references throughout the film to satisfy nerds like me while most of the laughs come simply from witty, well-written one-liners and fun situational comedy. Definitely a good time.

 

Underrated Classic Summer Blockbuster

Ben Stark’s Pick – The Phantom (1996)

Guys, please just take one second to slam some evil, okay? 1996′s THE PHANTOM is an underrated summer adventure that could not be a called a “blockbuster” by any stretch of the imagination, although it is structured like one. Despite a campy performance from Billy Zane and a slight mishandling of the Phantom mythology, the Ghost Who Walks’ only non-serialized film appearance is a fun ride. Fantastic production design, photography, and pacing make it well worth your time. If you need any more persuading, just check out the awesome score: http://tinyurl.com/3q4efws

Corey Craft’s Pick – Wanted (2008)

I’ve seen my fair share of underrated summer blockbusters in the past few years, but I’m going to pick a handful from the last couple years, all big, dumb action movies that beggar belief in the best way possible, Let’s just hop back to last summer — THE A-TEAM was as big and dumb and gleeful as I like my action movies to be, with a self-aware comic streak that worked, and a cast unafraid to mug and look like they’re having a good time. From 2008, the totally juvenile, incredibly dumb WANTED is nevertheless sold on the conviction of its cast (James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie are awesome) and some totally awesome set pieces. Neither are classics — THE A-TEAM is just barely even a good movie — but they’re good examples on how to make a big dumb summer blockbuster, which is to make them really, really big and have some intelligence behind how dumb they really are.

Ben Flanagan’s Pick – Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE (1995) gives its classic franchise starter a legitimate run for its money, thanks to dynamite dialogue, superb action sequences and brilliant interplay between Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. A smash hit overseas (earning $366M worldwide; and $100M domestic), John McTiernan’s welcome return to John McClane gave me all I needed in a big summer action blockbuster (and sequel) with thrilling car chases, carefully executed profanity and a worthy villain, played by a charmingly sadistic Jeremy Irons. Best of all, this movie one of 1995′s funniest movies. Throw a little gasoline and raw intensity (McClane’s first assignment in Harlem) into the mix, and you’ve got a surefire winner.

Graham Flanagan’s Pick – Eraser (1996)

With ERASER, director of THE MASK Chuck Russell moved out of his apparent comfort zone to helm a wholly-entertaining, if somewhat straightforward, weapons-heavy action vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. This might be the last solid Schwarzenegger actioner in existence. It is, excluding TERMINATOR 3, the last Schwarzenegger-driven film to gross more than $100M in the US.

Craig Hamilton Pick – E.T. (1982)

Anything typed in this paragraph will either have been said before or will be a vast understatement. That being said, E.T. is one of the greatest movies of all time. Released in June of 1982 and the fact that it cleared $350 million at the box office makes it one of the best and most successful blockbusters. As I said before, I can’t do this film justice, but I must recommend it. Very few films exist that create as splendid a giddiness as E.T. Films like this are the reason I am a film fan. It’s one of a kind because, having seen it is a child and as an adult, I saw the film from two different perspectives and I firmly believe that this was Spielberg’s intention all along. Spielberg is a genius for many reasons, but in my opinion, what he did with this film is awe-inspiring. To make a film that speaks to two completely different age groups and can mean so much to both is incredible. There’s not another film out there that is as technically innovative and emotionally touching at the same time. It’s thrilling and action-packed, but it’s one of the more emotional films out there.

Matt Scalici’s Pick – Mission: Impossible (1996)

I think a lot of this has to do with the age I was when I first saw Brian De Palma’s big screen adaptation of the classic 1960s spy series but this movie has always stuck out in my mind as the epitome of summer blockbuster action done right. Tom Cruise was at the height of his powers here as a believably bad-ass action star and while the plot gets almost absurdly labyrinthine but the twists and turns keep the stakes high in between spectacular action sequences. The fact that the break-in scene is still referenced constantly today is evidence of what an original and well-executed idea that scene is.

 

Franchise with the Best Sequels (Instead of Pirates of the Caribbean

Corey Craft’s Pick – James Bond

(I like PIRATES 2 & 3… but I’ll ignore the slight.) Yeah, if we’re going by long-running franchises, the James Bond franchise is the obvious answer here, if only by sheer number of sequels (there are a lot of terrible ones, but a lot of awesome ones too). I’ll also throw out the HARRY POTTER franchise. Look, there are a lot of remarkable things about this franchise — tight continuity, a central cast of children who all grew up portraying these characters as the characters got older — but it’s a sign of quality when the most tired and visually uninteresting films are the FIRST films. The series has actually gotten better with time, which is not something that many modern franchises can claim (with exception of the FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise, I guess, but how could that not be the case).
Ben Stark’s Pick – James Bond

The JAMES BOND series is far from bulletproof. It must say something for the character, however, that I can still anticipate entries in the franchise after DIE ANOTHER DAY. The 007 approach works so well because each film is relatively free of continuity, allowing it to live or die by its own strength. Bad 007 movies flounder just like bad movies do, and great 007 movies can rise to the level of great films. It’s a fantastic template that has no logical reason to die out any time soon.

Ben Flanagan’s Pick – Star Wars

Dang, did I just waste DIE HARD on another category. Oh well. How I wish we could forget that CRYSTAL SKULL thing ever happened and rave on like a lunatic about a once-pure trilogy. I digress. Speaking of tarnishing legacy, and since the criteria involves sequels and not prequels, STAR WARS has to take the intergalactic cake, no? Most argue EMPIRE STRIKES BACK virtually owns the trilogy if we’re picking bests, but I was always and continue to be a RETURN OF THE JEDI man, myself. Either way, perhaps under the direction of saner gentlemen who knew the saga’s limitations, the sequels established a legacy that changed film and our definition of the Hollywood blockbuster forever, thankfully.

Graham Flanagan’s Pick – Toy Story

I don’t see any clearer choice than the TOY STORY franchise. The third installment ranked among juggernauts like INCEPTION, THE SOCIAL NETWORK and THE KING’S SPEECH as one of the most-acclaimed movies of 2010. Also, You’d be hard-pressed to find many people who don’t believe TOY STORY 2 improved upon it’s wonderful predecessor. With the TOY STORY franchise, John Lasseter and the Pixar staff achieved what few filmmakers have been able to create: a trilogy of masterpieces.

Craig Hamilton’s Pick – Harry Potter

To me, Harry Potter is more of an obsession than it is a hobby. I read Harry Potter like I should read my Bible. Therefore, any opportunity I get to talk about it I seize. Every installment of this franchise improves with the exception of the 4th, Goblet of Fire. Mike Newell focused on the action sequences and the “school house” feel of things and completely lost the story. Unlike most film fans out there, I don’t view Prisoner of Azkaban as the best. Cuaron took what Columbus very successfully jump-started the franchise off with and added a refined artistic element to it. David Yates, director of the last 4 films, has taken the franchise to a completely new level. Yates, whose first feature length film was Order of the Phoenix, has learned the ropes and found his own style as a director with each film. As a result, both Yates and Harry Potter have benefited from this relationship. Yates has been able to build on his own work, giving the series another level of consistency and familiarity towards the end. He takes artistic liberties without too severely butchering the story. This franchise also has the absolute best set design and art direction out there and the special effects are completely unique. There’s an elegance to these effects that aren’t flashy and, therefore, fit well into this world.

Matt Scalici’s Pick – Back to the Future

Some really strong recommendations in this category, so I’m not going with my first (or even second) choice here. Back to the Future is, to me, an example of a truly perfect movie that not only refuses to diminish upon further viewings, it actually gets better. While Parts II and III don’t hold the same emotional pull with me, they are the perfect examples of sequels that use the groundwork laid by their predecessors and build off of that. While the stakes aren’t quite as high, Marty and Doc’s adventures in Parts II and III not only build on plot points from the first film, they actively involve them and allow us to relive them again in a different context (see Part II’s visit to the Enchantment Under the Sea dance). It’s probably the most inventive sequel I can think of in that respect.

Matt and Francesca are back to talk about the summer’s first sleeper hit, Kristen Wiig’s raunchy female comedy Bridesmaids.

 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD: Cinematrimony – Bridesmaids

 

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

As promised, here’s a link to Craig Hamilton’s fantastic Citizen Craig blog.

Also, check out this video clip mentioned in the podcast showing a bunch of women falling down in romantic comedies.

 

So apparently, according these people, the long-rumored Rapture is happening tomorrow. Clearly, these are false prophets and doofuses (doofusi?) that worship their own expectations and bad time management, but it certainly has gotten the collective subconscious dishing, hasn’t it? Just to be safe, though, there is a realization that’s come to convict me pretty strongly recently. Here’s some truth that will make people more uncomfortable than Lars Von Trier without his meds:

Jesus is God, and every good thing you’ve ever done or said or thought is a miracle of God.

Now, I’m perceived as wrong an awful lot around here. (Crystal Skull = A) That’s because I’m a damn, dirty human, and am incomplete. I am not God, you are not God, the planet is not God, we are not God. So, I can be wrong all I want, but God can’t be. He’s not allowed, so there you go. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

Let’s say I AM wrong about the false prophets, though. What is humanity in for?

Honestly? They might be part of an awesome movie, despite terrible living conditions. I’ve never been a big fan of post-apocalyptic movies, but I have to admit there have been some classics. Below are my favorite movies that take place in either an ending or having-had-ended Earth.

But first, a question. As I mentioned, I’m not incredibly well-versed in post-apocalyptic cinema. A few years ago, some awesome guys made a post-apocalyptic movie in our neck of the woods, featuring Hump Day‘s Josh Leonard. You can check it out here. Besides the following films, I’m wondering if I’m missing out on a genre I’ve purposely ignored for a long time. I know The Road and The Book of Eli have gotten some praise in the past few years. Should I check them out? I also have trouble categorizing the genre. I left a few movies off my list because I wasn’t sure they would count. If they do count, throw ‘em on there as runners-up: They Live, Night of the Living Dead, Shaun of the Dead, The Last Man on Earth (not a question, just a runner-up).

 

1.) Children of Men – It’s only been a few years since Alfonso Cuaron released his masterfully messy story about the potential twilight of man, but it continues to crawl up list of my favorite movies of all time. Despite taking place in a bleak Dystopia, the film works like an amazing piece of music, driving all of its anxiety and tension towards one transcendent moment. The fallout of that moment is as harrowing as the rest of the film. A fact that has been highly publicized is that much of the horror in the movie is captured in floating long takes, a visual motif Cuaron carried over from his other road movie, Y tu mama tambien. Despite its incredible cinematography, production design, and visual effects, Children of Men just would not work without Clive Owen’s lead performance. His Theo has been beaten up by life, and Owen wears that in his hangdog expression. It’s the kind of down-and-out movie star performance that reminds me of Dean Martin’s Dude in Rio Bravo. Not only is the film certifiable bad-ass cinema, it’s also a pretty great argument for total depravity.

2.) Wall-E – Possibly the most cuddly post-apocalyptic movie ever, this robot love story is something you can put on and watch it any situation. Quite possibly my favorite Pixar film, Andrew Stanton really went all-out making sure that the romance works here, and that we really believe in Wall-E’s isolation. Not only is it a fantastic movie about life after the end of the world, but it’s also an incredible movie about loneliness.

3.) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) – Philip Kaufman’s creepy and hard-hitting remake of Don Siegel’s original 50′s horror classic is just plain amazing. The build-up to the end of it all is sickeningly tense, as we are introduced to a close-knit group of characters, then watch them evade sleep as the rest of civilization succumbs to the subversive invaders. Not only does Invasion ’78 feature one of the great movie endings (don’t ruin it for yourself by watching it on YouTube) it also boasts another one of those fantastic mustachioed Donald Sutherland performances (see: Don’t Look Now). What bowled me over on my first watch was Kaufman’s ability to plant seeds of tension early on, as we get the strong feeling that background characters and extras have already turned, long before the main characters realize what’s going on.

4.) Planet of the Apes – Just having this film on the list seems like a spoiler, but let’s be honest. The movie’s been out for over forty years, and the spoiler image is on the DVD cover, not to mention referenced in one of the great Simpsons episodes (“Protect the Queen!” “Which ones the Queen?” “I am.” “No, you’re not.”) Based on Pierre Boulle’s fantastic novel, this 60′s classic trades in the novel’s modernity for an almost Ben-Hur approach, understandably.

5.) Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior – I’ll be frank. I’m not a fan of George Miller’s Mad Max. I have no real connection to Mel Gibson’s character. I find a lot of the eccentricities of the Mad Max universe to be kind of annoying, along with some of the performances. I can’t call this a perfect movie, or even one of my all-time favorites. I can, however, admit that its aesthetics, plot, and action scenes are just plain incredible. I bought the film on blu-ray just so I can experience the film’s climactic tanker chase in the best possible fashion. If you haven’t seen The Road Warrior, and enjoy the endorphin release of a well-constructed, adrenaline-pumping car chase, you’re seriously missing out. The fact that this is post-apocalyptic is probably irrelevant.

Just like most conversations in my life, a theological musing has led to a car wreck. Go back to my earlier questions, though- Post your favorite post-apocalyptic movies, fill me in on the genre specifics, and above all- on Sunday morning, do NOT trust Chiwetel Ejiofor.

 

Note: Back to the Movies is a special feature on the FilmNerds blog in which Matt Scalici will be watching the Top 50 highest-grossing movies of 1983 in order from 50 to 1.

As an American born in 1983, I’ve been fortunate enough to live the vast majority of my life without the shadows of the Soviet Union hanging over my head. For Americans who were born before that year, even as late as the late 1970s, the Cold War was a very real force in their lives for a very long time. It’s something that someone my age takes for granted, the idea that for nearly half a century part of being American meant living in fear every day that the second-most powerful nation in the world might get an itchy trigger finger and blow every living thing from New York to California right off the map. One imagines that there’s only one way to live under such conditions and that’s simply go about your life trying not to worry about it, which is exactly what most people did. In the meantime, however, the constant threat of such overwhelming violence can’t help but color the way people of that time think about everything, from global geopolitics and war to personal relationships.

We’ve encountered a handful of films already that address the Cold War directly at least briefly (Gorky Park, The Dead Zone, The Right Stuff, Uncommon Valor and Octopussy) but no other film from 1983 addresses Cold War angst as directly as WarGames does. But what makes John Badham’s thoughtful and, at times, emotionally wrought Cold War thriller a timeless classic is that unlike some of the aforementioned films, WarGames brings those often buried emotions about the Cold War and brings them to the forefront, exposing what must have been some fairly raw nerves and dealing with them in a direct (though some might say on-the-nose) manner.

The film has a long and convoluted history, beginning its life as a screenplay by Walter F. Parkes and Lawrence Lasker, two Yale-educated screenwriters who were fascinated by the fast-growing world of computers and the people who lived in that world. Parkes and Lasker started out writing a story about a Stephen Hawking-like scientist trying to pass on his knowledge to a young punk genius. As the years went by, the script was slowly updated to incorporate the concepts of computers and hacking, which also brought in ideas like computer simulations and game theory.

The film essentially tells two intertwining stories. One involves computer scientist Professor Falken (John Wood), a brilliant mind who became disillusioned about the world after the death of his wife and son and eventually convinced the military to fake his death so he could live out his remaining days in isolation on a wooded island. The second story, which takes place years later, centers on a young computer hacker named David (Matthew Broderick) who uses his then-rare skills to make mischief and impress girls. In an attempt to get early access to a new computer game, David accidentally finds his way into a military computer system that goes by the name Joshua and unknowingly activates a war simulation that could accidentally lead to a real nuclear war.

As the film balances between these two storylines, it also balances between two distinct tones: a light-hearted and somewhat mischievous tone that dominates the story of David and his girlfriend Jennifer (played by a young and wonderfully charming Ally Sheedy) while the other is a gravely serious and often dark tone dealing with NORAD and the imminent threat of a nuclear holocaust. This tonal shift is in part accidental due to director Martin Brest being fired just a few weeks into production and being replaced by Badham, who had a much lighter vision for the film. Take a look at these two scenes, one that seems to belong in a fast-paced action drama and another that clearly seems to belong in a straight comedy.

While sometimes these two tones seem to conflict with one another, that conflict is part of this movie’s brilliance and poignance. On the one hand, it shows us that nuclear peace in the world of 1983 hangs by such a thin thread that even a trouble-making computer hacker could potentially set off the chain of events leading to Mutually Assured Destruction. On the other hand, David and Jennifer’s emotional breakdowns after learning what’s going on show us one of the great tragedies of the Cold War, the havoc that the constant threat of violence can play on the minds of young people old enough to understand what’s happening in the world. 16-year-olds should be worried about making good grades and who they are going to ask out this weekend, not whether or not they’ll ever live to be 17.

We’ve dealt with teen angst in our countdown thus far on a number of occasions (All the Right Moves, Valley Girl, The Outsiders, Risky Business), enough to know that it was clearly a theme that resonated with 1983 audiences. It’s a theme that remains popular today, though it takes a different form, but I wonder if that angst wasn’t perhaps at least exaggerated by the fact that teenagers in 1983 had something deadly serious to be anxious about as a part of their day-to-day lives.

If nuclear angst is a part of the equation here, another major part is angst over the rapid development of technology and the fear that it could perhaps “outrun” humanity. The idea that Joshua the computer is actually learning, and not just learning data but learning complicated concepts that involve the value of human life, seems ridiculous to us today but it plays on the fear that computers might become so advanced that they’ll begin to make decisions without us. It’s the same idea that drove the still popular Terminator franchise and WarGames simply deals with it on real-world terms rather than science fiction terms.

On top of asking all these complex philosophical questions, which puts it light years ahead of the game when it comes to most blockbuster hits, WarGames also happens to be a terrifically well-made film. Badham’s direction of the handful of action sequences in the film are crucial to keeping the tension high during this very talky film and the performances by the entire cast, in particular Dabney Coleman as the sleazy-yet-sympathetic McKittrick and Barry Corbin as the cartoonish General Beringer, are strong.

The movie is also peppered with some nice smaller performances, including a somewhat ridiculous comedic performance from character actor Irving Metzman (a Woody Allen stock player in the ’80s) as a nebbishy computer scientist responsible for updating NORAD (and the audience) about what’s going on with Joshua. There’s also the memorable opening sequence featuring younger versions of two actors who would become quite well known in the ’90s as flawed members of a nuclear missile launch crew: Michael Madsen (Reservoir Dogs) and John Spencer (The West Wing).

It’s not a surprise that audiences responded so well to WarGames but perhaps what is surprising to me is that a movie that seems to have been so timely in 1983 still feels so effective today, despite the fact that it features outdated technology and speaks to international relations issues that haven’t existed for nearly 20 years. Perhaps growing up in the era of September 11th has given me a parallel to draw on (I was nearly the same age as David when the attacks occurred). Perhaps it’s simply a movie that draws on human emotions that every generation feels: the idea that technology is moving too fast for us, no matter how much we think we know about it; the idea that war or nature or viruses or any number of things out of our control could wipe us off the earth at any moment; and the more optimistic idea that a group of smart people in a room can solve even the most urgent and dire of problems. These are all things we still feel today and even though the Cold War dynamic is long gone from the world, it’s possible that the emotions tapped into in WarGames still exist in the American audiences of 2011.

DOWNLOAD: Back to the Movies Podcast – WarGames (with guest Sam McDavid)

 

Next Up: Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd star in the most successful comedy of 1983, Trading Places.

 

Note: Back to the Movies is a special feature on the FilmNerds blog in which Matt Scalici will be watching the Top 50 highest-grossing movies of 1983 in order from 50 to 1.

As regular readers will know, Octopussy is the first of two James Bond films released in 1983, with the second being the Warner Bros. produced Never Say Never Again released in October of ’83 (you can read more about that film and why it was made at the same time as Octopussy in my post on Never Say Never Again). Before Sean Connery made his triumphant return to the role, Octopussy saw Roger Moore, now in his mid-50s, pick up the mantle of James Bond once again. Unlike Connery later in the year, Moore’s Bond film had all the trappings of a classic Bond flick, all the little details that make it the comfortable and reliable franchise that we love: the delightful Desmond Llewelyn as Q, the phenomenal score from John Barry, and perhaps most importantly the budget to pull off some garish and extravagant action sequences and set pieces.

Octopussy opens with a typically absurd Bond action episode that features James destroying a Soviet military base in Cuba and flying away gallantly in a rocket power jet that emerges from a hidden chamber inside a horse trailer (complete with mock horse ass). As expected, a corny joke leads us into the opening title sequence, a staple of any real Bond film. In this particular case, we’re treated to a particularly putrid ballad written by Barry and oddly songwriting legend Tim Rice. The song, called “All Time High”, basically has nothing to do with the film and makes almost no references to danger or evil or any of the things we typically see trickle their way into Bond themes. Instead it works as kind of a stand-alone ballad that could have been the lead single on any number of forgettable pop albums in the early ’80s. Barry does incorporate the main theme of the song nicely into the score throughout the film and it seems to work better in that context but as a song, it falls pretty flat particularly in comparison to some of the other great Bond themes of the late ’70s and early ’80s.

I won’t take you through the enormously twisting plot that covers everything from a group of murderous circus performers to a Soviet plot to take over Western Europe but let’s just say that the majority of the film takes place in India and revolves around the theft and recovery of a Fabergé egg, a classic and typically swanky James Bond MacGuffin. The parties involved in competing for said egg include Bond, a renegade Russian general (Steven Berkoff), a middle Eastern prince named Kamal Kahn (Louis Jordan) and the film’s title character, a beautiful cult leader/circus performer/master thief named Octopussy (Maud Adams). Octopussy predictably becomes involved with James as a love interest and ends up being a much more suitable, believable and age-appropriate love interest than Kristina Wayborn’s Magda, whom Bond beds earlier in the film.

The hijinx surrounding the egg take us through a car chase through the streets of India, a game hunt (a la “The Most Dangerous Game”) through the jungles and through more than a couple of fight sequences set inside Indian palaces and we often forget why anyone is even bothering to attack Bond other than their status as “bad guys”. What appears to set everything into motion is an early scene that shows us a trope we see in almost every Bond movie ever made, dating back to the very first Bond film, Dr. No. It involves Bond sitting across from an obviously cheating Kamal Kahn and besting the villain at his own game, thereby turning the conflict between the two from a mere business rivalry into a personal one. We see an almost identical scene later in the year in Never Say Never Again that involves the two characters playing a high-tech video game but here the game is a simple backgammon tournament.

Louis Jordan doesn’t have a lot to work with in terms of clever dialogue but his over-the-top performance makes him an entertaining Bond villain and a recognizable face in a movie that has almost a dozen more characters than feels necessary. There are so many villains in particular that it’s easy to lose track. There’s Mischka and Grischka, the knife throwing circus performers we see at the beginning and end of the film. There’s the turban-wearing lead henchman who seems very fond of karate chopping people at unexpected moments. Then there’s a street urchin brought in later in the film who uses the very specialized (and very impractical) weapon that resembles a buzz saw crossed with a yo-yo. What’s most amusing about this weapon is the fact that it can only be used if you are at least one story above your intended victim, making open foyer’s a very dangerous place to hang out.

As a whole, the film doesn’t make a ton of sense and it’s largely just a thinly strung together group of scenes that could be interchangeable with similar scenes from any other Bond movie. That said, a lot of those scenes are pretty darn entertaining, particularly the final car chase scene in Germany as Bond speeds toward a ticking bomb and the spectacular final stunt sequence in which Bond hangs onto a plane as it takes off and flies over a mountain range. Yes, there are terrible, eye-rolling moments like Bond’s chase through the jungle in which he swings on a vine while an audio sample from the original Tarzan films plays on the soundtrack. But those moments are fewer and farther between than in a lot of other Bond films, including a lot of the Pierce Brosnan films which frankly were about as loaded with double entendres as the corniest of Roger Moore’s films.

The audience and critical response to the film were both largely positive. With a final tally of $67.8 million, Octopussy became, at the time, the second-most successful Bond release ever and critics, while divide, were largely in agreement that this was at least a passable and entertaining Bond film (click here to see Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert debate that point on At the Movies, review starts at 4:35). Over time, Octopussy has earned a reputation as one of the cheesier, cornier installments of the franchise but as is the case with almost all Bond films that had any measure of success at the box office, this is a movie that was able to correctly identify what its audience wanted and give it to them in large amounts. The Bond series is nothing if not populist.

DOWNLOAD: Back to the Movies Podcast – Octopussy (with guest Lucas Pepke)

Next Up: We enter the Top Five with one of the most memorable blockbusters of the early ’80s, WarGames starring Matthew Broderick.

The Movie: Husbands and Wives

Spoiler Level: Medium

The Setup: It’s movie gossip history at this point, but the fallout between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow in the early 90′s was quite a hot topic, and went a long way in alienating the general public from the respected auteur. Much of the publicized tension pointed to this film, their last creative endeavor after a series of classics that include Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Purple Rose of Cairo. The 80′s were a creative high water mark for Woody Allen, culminating in Husbands and Wives, a stripped-down, hand-held faux documentary that watches two relationships crumble. The film boasts several fantastic scenes and at least two great ones, including the opening sequence, in which married couple Gabe (Allen) and Judy (Farrow) are shocked by an announcement by friends Jack (Sydney Pollack) and Sally (Judy Davis).

Why It’s Great: Allen begins the film with a close up on a TV interview, in which nuclear physicist Nicholas Metropolis quotes Einstein: “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” Allen’s Gabe quickly retorts, “No- He just plays hide and seek.”

With that the game kicks off, as we meet Gabe and his wife Judy, the camera bouncing between them. They are, from the start, separated by their scattered New York flat, and the camera struggles to place them together. Allen’s writing in the scene is phenomenal, as almost every line is a set-up for the rest of the story.  Gabe reveals his attention has been nabbed by a sexually alert student of his. Judy dismisses his comments as typical and reverts to minutiae.  The film starts in earnest when Jack and Sally enter and clinically reveal that they are splitting up. They position that this isn’t a tragedy, that “this is positive for us”.  It doesn’t take long for the news to take its toll on Judy.  She quickly turns from swearing privacy and respect to lashing out against the apparently transgressing couple, their “closest friends”.  For Judy, Jack and Sally’s relationship is a reflection of her own, and the cracks soon appear.

Every performance in this scene is perfect, which is absolutely necessary when the traditional rules of cinema are disregarded. This is proof that great performances can, and must, lead a film. My personal favorite performer in the whole film is Pollack’s Jack, whose romantic fate is the centerpiece of the other great scene of the film. Let’s not discount technical merit, however. Director of Photography Carlo DiPalma uses a selective set and practical lighting perfectly to make sure his camera never casts a shadow, and isn’t afraid to let things wander. At several points in the scene, the camera is visibly lost, holding on a column or an empty frame for a moment before finding an elusive character. The erratic focus pulls are marvelous as well; notice that Judy is left soft several times throughout the scene, before she physically exits the whole affair.

Husbands and Wives is a game of hide and seek, between people and their feelings, and between people and other people. For more, check out Roger Ebert’s great review from the time of the film’s release.

Note: Back to the Movies is a special feature on the FilmNerds blog in which Matt Scalici will be watching the Top 50 highest-grossing movies of 1983 in order from 50 to 1.

If you look at Clint Eastwood’s Sudden Impact as an attempt to tell a story, it’s a failure in every way. The plot is nowhere near cohesive or linear, the characters are so paper thin it’s hard to tell the victims from the villains (or even the heroes for that matter), even the title doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the actual content of the story. Yet in almost every other way, critically, financially and popularity-wise, the film is a success. It finished with $67.6 million at the box office (making it the highest grossing of the five Dirty Harry films) and it did relatively well with critics (positive reviews from Roger Ebert and others, though not from the notoriously crabby Vincent Canby). It gave the people exactly what they wanted in 1983, which means that while it provides us today with a perfectly preserved time capsule of the nation’s attitude in 1983, it is a movie that is far too “of the moment” to stand up well and resonate with a modern audience.

Vincent Canby’s review makes him look awfully ahead of his time, or perhaps completely out of touch with his own time. He berates the film and Eastwood calling the screenplay “ridiculous” and Eastwood’s direction “primitive” and most importantly expresses disgust at the film’s morality, which amazingly was not a popular opinion in 1983. Roger Ebert takes a more lighthearted approach to the film, almost ironically appreciating the complete and utter disregard for human life and law and order displayed in the movie. Criminals are shot in broad daylight and essentially left where they fall and never mentioned again. There are easily more people killed in the film at the hands of Eastwood’s rogue cop Harry Callahan than by any of the so-called “bad guys” and yet audiences didn’t seem to feel any moral equivocation about this in 1983. On the contrary, they couldn’t get enough of it.

Sudden Impact began its life as a screenplay designed to be a vehicle for actress Sondra Locke, a name that doesn’t register to most movie fans today but who was a fairly well-known name in 1983. Locke burst onto the scene as a 17-year-old phenom earning an Oscar nomination for The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter in 1968. For most of the ’70s and ’80s, Locke was perhaps most well known as the romantic partner of Clint Eastwood, starring alongside him in several of his biggest movies during that era. This screenplay, built around a controversial revenge tale of a woman hunting down and killing the group of men who raped her and her sister, would give Locke a starring role in what would be a unique take on the vigilante justice genre.

In the meantime, Warner Bros. was in the midst of conducting some research in preparation for what many believed was a pretty tricky move: the marketing of Never Say Never Again. Warner Bros. was looking to see just how popular Sean Connery still was and how strong an impression he had made on contemporary audiences. As a part of that research, Warner Bros. asked audiences about some other well-known male film characters and were shocked to discover that Dirty Harry came back with one of the strongest and most positive responses. Upon seeing these numbers, Warner Bros. approached Eastwood about the possibility of making another Dirty Harry movie, reviving a franchise that had been dormant since 1976. Warner Bros. essentially threw themselves at Eastwood, offering him an almost absurd 60% of the total profits to act and direct in a new Dirty Harry movie.

Eastwood decided to kill two professional birds with one stone and adapted Locke’s rape-revenge project into a Dirty Harry script. On the surface, it seems like a pretty good fit, as Locke fills the role of a female counterpoint, a “Dirty Harriet” if you will, that takes on the same kind of vigilante attitude that audiences loved so much about Harry Callahan.

Watching Locke blow away her victims in cold blood (and regardless of the crimes they committed, they are victims in this situation), I can’t help but think that I’m having a completely different reaction to this film than the average 1983 audience member would have had. From what I’ve seen elsewhere in the ’80s (including moments in Psycho II), there are signs that indicate a prevailing feeling that the justice system was inherently flawed, protecting criminals more than innocent citizens and victims. The Dirty Harry series was always built on that premise but Sudden Impact takes the idea to a new level and takes the solution (i.e. Callahan’s willingness to shoot criminals rather than arrest them) to new heights as well.

In the middle of what is perhaps the most violent scene in the film, a robbery that takes place early in the movie in a diner, Callahan utters the film’s most famous line and indeed one of the most famous and oft-referenced lines in all of movie history: “Go ahead, make my day.” It’s so well-known today that the line has almost no impact when 2011 ears hear it but in the context of the film, it actually sums up the film’s irresponsible attitude toward crime and punishment. The line is said to one of the robbers as a sort of dare for the robber to shoot the hostage he is holding at gunpoint, I guess with the implication being that if he shoots the hostage, Callahan will not only not care but he’ll actually be pleased because he’ll then be justified in shooting the robber. This is a horrifyingly callous approach to take for someone who is supposed to be a hero and it illustrates that Callahan is essentially a murderer who happens to work for the good guys.

Yes, I am oversimplifying and over-moralizing a movie that is not intended to be taken seriously, at least not fully. This is escapist entertainment designed to stir those ultra-conservative passions and frustrations that so drove the public’s thinking in the Reagan era. Is my view on this movie the product of political correctness seeping into the culture for the last 30 years? I’m sure it is, but I’m also pretty sure that’s not always a bad thing. Movies like this not only show violence in a positive light but they also just aren’t very good movies. Sudden Impact isn’t a mystery film that asks us to follow around a violent character who uses any means necessary to get to the bottom of the crime. It’s not a mystery because from the very beginning of the film, we always know exactly who the criminal is – and we’re asked to root for her! Instead, Sudden Impact‘s thrills come not from story revelations but from a series of loosely strung together episodes of Callahan and Locke shooting criminals in variously uncomfortable parts of their anatomy.

When I say “loosely strung together”, I mean that in between scenes of violence, we are treated to an almost innumerable list of scenes of various police authority figures (most notable Pat Hingle who played Commissioner Gordon in the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher Batman films) wagging their fingers at Callahan and stereotypically reprimanding him for all the mayhem he causes while simultaneously praising him for his results. It’s unbearably trite today and was probably unoriginal even in 1983.

If the film has any effective moments, they can be found in Locke’s storyline which at times is a truly disturbing and even horrifying subplot. Locke’s rage motivating her killings is illustrated to us in the form of quick and startling flashback shots of the terrible gang rape that she and her now-catatonic sister suffered as teenagers. I find Locke herself to even be slightly disturbing to look at in this film. Her wide and dark eyes, pale complexion and thin build make her a convincing psychotic killer, though it doesn’t help me to see her as a legitimate romantic lead for Eastwood.

Over the course of this project I’ve encountered a number of films that work extremely well in 2011, probably as well or even better than they did upon first release in 1983. Sudden Impact is unquestionably at the other end of the scale, a movie that clearly made a huge impact on audiences in 1983 but is almost incomprehensible to a modern viewer. It’s almost as if the film were made in another a language and in a way it was. It speaks to an American culture and attitude that simply doesn’t exist anymore. In this writer’s opinion, that’s a good thing.

DOWNLOAD: Back to the Movies Podcast – Sudden Impact (with guest Ben Flanagan)

Next Up: We’ve seen Sean Connery as James Bond in 1983, now it’s Roger Moore’s turn at bat in Octopussy.