Tony Scott Retrospective: “Top Gun” (1986)

Whenever my dad would upgrade his entertainment system, the movie he would test drive it with was always “Top Gun.” Starting with the gentle pitter-patter of Harold Faltermeyer's synthesized drum machine over the Paramount Pictures logo, it segues into the golden dawn on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Amidst the smoke and the flight deck crew's communication with hand signals, the music crescendos in sync with the warming up engines of the F-14's. Upon the firing of the jet's afterburners and takeoff, the soundtrack jolts into Kenny Loggins' “Danger Zone.” This combination of sights and sounds puts anyone's home movie-watching experience to the ultimate test. There is perhaps no more apropos introduction for a movie you're about to see than the opening credits of “Top Gun.”

There is probably also no greater U-turn in subject matter between a director's debut film and their subsequent sophomore opus than Tony Scott's pivot from “The Hunger” to “Top Gun.” Ironically, what the two films have most in common are the less-than-subtle homoerotic overtones. It's also interesting that “Top Gun” was Tony Scott's only PG-rated film in his entire career. He definitely was shooting for an R-rating, though. When you watch the backlit silhouetted love scene, it very obviously cuts away from when Kelly McGillis is just about to drop her top, as if we're watching a network television edit.

Perhaps that was either Tony Scott's joke on the audience, or an attempt to get the love scene axed altogether. Apparently, when the original cut was shown to test audiences, there was strong feedback that the film needed a sex scene. The reason the post-production footage was so dimly lit was a matter of necessity. Since both Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis had moved onto other projects when it came time to film, they no longer looked like their characters from “Top Gun” anymore. Whatever the reason and regardless of how Scott felt about having to do it, this became the look of most of his subsequent love scenes in his future work (particularly in “True Romance”).

Despite this campy scene with its superfluous tongue probing and all, the film in general holds up pretty well, I'm always surprised by that when I revisit it. It does indeed ooze the 80's (especially with its music), but not to the point of being distracting or embarrassing. Also, credit is due for how influential this movie was. Not only did the Navy see a 500% increase in recruitment after its release (yikes), but this was the movie that paved the way for owning films on home video. Up until this time, VHS tapes were very expensive to own (literally like $100) because they were manufactured to be sold wholesale and thus most everyone was limited to renting any movies they wanted to watch. In the earlier years of VCR's, it was unexplored territory as to whether people wanted to watch any one movie often enough to justify owning it. The popularity of “Top Gun” caught Pepsi's attention and they said, “Hey, if you let us put a specially made commercial at the beginning of the video, we'll make them priced to own immediately upon release.” It was wildly successful and the rest is history.

“Top Gun” was the film that set the standard for Tony Scott's style (smoky sets and inexplicable sweating, for example) and was the one all his other movies were compared to. It was some time before people and advertisements stopped referring to Tony Scott as “the director of 'Top Gun.'” Regardless of Scott's additional great work, “Top Gun” will probably still be the movie for which he is most remembered 100 years from now. However, as a testament to just how huge this movie was, the same will probably also be said for Tom Cruise. That's one helluva movie. One that people will probably still be using to test their home theaters.

Tony Scott Retrospective: “The Hunger” (1983)

During my teenage years, when I was beginning to move from merely watching movies to actually seeing them, I started noticing directors and their particular signatures on the films they made. One of the first directors to stand out to me was Tony Scott. By the time I got to college, he had become one of the few directors whose films I would watch no matter what. Didn't need to see a trailer, didn't care what they were about, just wanted to see artist's craftsmanship. Needless to say, I was devastated when Tony Scott took his own life in 2012. As this year marks a decade since his untimely passing, I decided to take it upon myself to watch his entire feature library throughout the year and give my reactions to each accordingly.

Tony never did meet the critical success or audience reverence of his older brother Ridley, who actually got him into the business. Like most directors, Tony started off doing television commercials. As his talent, experience, and aspirations grew, obviously the next logical step was to move onto feature films. Always thinking big, Tony had his sights set on directing an adaptation of Anne Rice's hugely successful novel “Interview with the Vampire.” While that was not in production yet (and likely tied up with securing the rights), Whitley Strieber's vampire novel “The Hunger” was optioned by MGM and seeking a director. The producers originally wanted Alan Parker (having just directed Pink Floyd's “The Wall”), but Parker recommended Tony Scott, being a fan of his work in commercials.

Long story short: Tony Scott's “The Hunger” received a lukewarm (if not totally indifferent) reception from critics and audiences and vanished into obscurity. I would argue the film was ahead of its time and largely misunderstood. It did indeed eventually become a cult favorite amongst the “Emo” crowd. It is nothing if not an ambitious film and a bold debut.

Even for a vampire film, it is quite unconventional. Scott's visual style is something that has always made him stand out from other directors and you see a lot of the foundations here. He plays heavily with light, particularly the contrast of bright whites with shadows, usually coming from the side rather than above or straight on. We see a lot of dim rooms lit by the surrounding windows and often obscured by blinds, leaving a horizontal stripe configuration on the characters and backgrounds. This is, of course, emphasized by Scott's industrious use of smoke. In every scene, the light cuts through the haze, giving each scene a very ethereal quality. We also see Scott's use of color as a means of storytelling. The film has a predominantly cool palette of grays and blues, which makes the blood, when it flows, all the more stark and shocking. This film comes across more gory than it actually is because the blood clashes with the cold elegance of the film and, when the otherwise subdued and dignified vampires leap upon it like addicts seeking their lifeforce, the title of the film rings true.

As Tony Scott undoubtedly put a great deal of himself into this film, it's no wonder that the lackluster response led him back to the world of advertising. Luckily, producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer were both fans of “The Hunger” and, upon seeing Tony Scott's SAAB commercial featuring a jet fighter, took a chance and optioned Tony Scott to direct “Top Gun.” That's for next time, though.

After the disappointed response from “The Hunger,” Scott vowed to never read any of his own press ever again. In that regard, “The Hunger” was a success because, while it's true Scott enjoyed a significant success in the 80's producing flashy, expensive, and loud blockbusters for studios, he still did things his own way. He did not pander to audiences or trends. He may have created a few, though, by always experimenting and pushing the boundaries. We have “The Hunger” to thank for that.

Half a Fascist Nation

Over the past four years, I've fantasized about how I would feel at this moment. How I would react once realizing the Trump presidency was coming to an end. I imagined being unable to contain my elation, literally running and screaming and dancing like Gene Kelly. I thought for sure that was how it would be. Instead, I feel relief. And not the comforting relief, like when you pass a test you didn't study for or when you make it to the restroom just before you're about to soil yourself. I'm talking about the kind of relief like being pulled from a car wreck before the vehicle explodes.

And, like a horrible car wreck, this is where we are at: We just got pulled from the wreck. The past four years have been the car rolling and flying and smashing and breaking and all we've done so far is survive it. What's to come is the trip to the hospital, the surgery, the recuperation, the body cast, the pain medications, the physical therapy, the x-rays, the medical bills. We're just getting started with the hard part. I saw some people posting on social media the final shot from Return of the Jedi where the protagonists, having finally defeated the Empire, embrace each other, smiling amongst the Ewok jubilee. I didn't have the heart to tell them that, if the trajectory this country has been on lately is the STAR WARS trilogy, we're only at the part where R2-D2 & C-3PO flee the Blockade Runner in the escape pod.

I'm not just referring to reparations of all the destruction Trump has wrought, either. I'm talking about the soul of this country. One only needs to look at the election results to see how much work has to been done. Check out this map. This is how the Presidential Election of 1984 turned out. As you can see, Reagan absolutely trounced Mondale. And Reagan, while popular, certainly wasn't a dream candidate. Neither was Mondale an offensive maniac nor a colossal screw up. How could an election during such an optimistic time be so one-sided, while an election of literally Democracy vs. Fascism be as close as this one was? People could feign ignorance in 2016 because Donald Trump, despite shamelessly behaving like the morally-bankrupt insane idiot he is throughout his entire campaign, had not illustrated how truly unfit he was for office until he was in office. But close to half the country wanted to do it all over again. That's a huge problem.

It's not just a huge problem because such a large percentage of the population liked tyranny and enthusiastically wanted more. It's a huge problem because Donald Trump has laid the groundwork for a smart fascist who knows what they're doing to step right in and pick up where Trump left off. And this candidate will be welcomed with open arms. I promise you the GOP is working on that right now at this moment and will continue to for the next four years. PLEASE read this article by Zeynep Tufekci at The Atlantic for a detailed summation of this concept.

It was clear that Trump was always nothing more than a battering ram for the Republican Party. A blunt instrument to see what they could get away with. And easily discarded once his usefulness was spent. Turns out they could get away with a lot. Probably more than they suspected. I must say that I'm pleased my paranoid doomsday predictions turned out to be on a Y2K bug level of inaccuracy. I'm surprised, too. I figured given the indifference shown after Stormy Daniels, the Mueller Report, and actual Impeachment, there's nothing the GOP wouldn't do to keep Trump in power, including contesting the results of a clear cut election to the point where the Supreme Court decided in his favor. “Screw the voters and the whole concept of Democracy.” Guess we finally found the line that Trump enablers were unwilling to cross. I've never in my life been so happy to be wrong.

Although, I suppose it's worth pointing out, the Trump Administration is not over yet. In keeping with my car wreck analogy: If the election results are us being pulled from the wreckage, Inauguration Day will be us having made it to the hospital safely. At the very least, don't be surprised if there's a lot of self-sabotage between now and January 20^th. Ever since the Clinton years, Republicans have been more adamant about the failure of Democrats than their own successes, even to their own detriment. Remember a few years ago when some Conservative judges were voted out and they responded by commuting the sentences of several criminals and just letting them loose purely out of sour grapes? Yeah, expect a lot of that. Even just petty stuff like Trump pissing on the Oval Office carpet is not outside the realm of plausibility.

So, where do we go from here? That's a long and complicated conversation that probably has no end. All I can say is I hope intelligent, pragmatic, honorable people make the decisions from here on out and and never give up. One way to start is to give the election process a complete overhaul: Abolish the Electoral College, enact automatic voter registration, make Election Day a national holiday, and have nationwide mail-in ballots.

Whatever happens, this much is true: We can't rely on the government to take care of us. We can't even rely on the police to protect us. So, we'll have to look after each other. Don't let small things slide. Don't let ignorant declarations go unchallenged. Don't accommodate hate as just a “difference of opinion.” Don't normalize absurd madness. Hold people accountable. Maintain integrity. Demand integrity from others. And never, ever give up. Because the bad guys sure won't. We haven't won. We've merely pivoted.

The Art of Killing Children You're Supposed to be Taking Care Of

Imagine this:

Imagine you have a young child of about 3 or 4 years of age. Imagine putting that child in daycare. Most of you are probably identifying with this easily because you've actually done it.

Now imagine coming to pick your child up from daycare after a full workday and finding them tied to a chair with visible bruises, bloody snot running down their face, excrement in their pants seeping down their legs, and bawling and wailing that they're hungry. You ask the caregiver there what happened and this is their response:

“I told your kid it was nap time and they refused to go to sleep. So, I yelled at them and demanded they lay down and, when they wouldn't, I threw them to the floor. Then, they started crying and I told them to shut up and they wouldn't. So, I stuffed a dirty handkerchief into their mouth to shut them up. They pulled the gag out and started calling me names. I didn't like that, so I slapped your kid around. Then they got really nasty and started throwing stuff at me, so I tied them to the chair and revoked their privileges of food and bathroom breaks and told them they could just sit there until they learned to behave. Then I slapped them around some more while they were tied up just to teach them a lesson.”

Remember, your child is 3 or 4 years old.

You express your outrage and they reply with “Hey, it's their fault. They brought this on themselves.”

You're so angry, you demand to speak to their boss. The administrator of the facility hears what was discussed and says, “I don't believe our caregiver behaved inappropriately based on what I've been told and I see no need for termination or disciplinary action. Bad things happen to bad kids.”

Defeated, you contact the Better Business Bureau with a complaint and they throw up their hands and say, “Without any evidence, there's nothing we can do about it. Perhaps you should just take your child to another daycare center because it sounds like they were causing trouble at the last one.”

Left with no other options, that's what you do. Then, one day, you come to pick up your child again after work and the child is handcuffed and locked in a closet. The caregiver says, “Your kid wouldn't come inside when it was time to fingerpaint. When we dragged them in, they threw a tantrum, so we beat them with sticks. They kept making it worse, so we locked 'em in the closet, bound and gagged. Your child totally deserved it.”

Imagine that happening no matter what daycare center you took them to. Imagine it happening time and time again and being met with the same response every time. Imagine talking to other parents and hearing they had the exact same experiences nationwide. Imagine there was a group of people (like rich families or something) whose kids acted out similarly but weren't punished with anywhere near the same severity and, in some cases, not punished at all.

Imagine these are your kids. How enraged would you be?

No matter what a child does, no matter how mad, loud, destructive, violent, or unruly a child gets, it is the caregiver's responsibility to remain professional, deescalate the situation, and – most importantly – maintain the safety of the child and other children.

The police swear an OATH to protect and serve everyone. I imagine the oaths vary from state to state, but the general gist of it is “On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve.” I know you just read it, but read it again.

It is not the public's responsibility to be on their best behavior. It is not the public's responsibility to be respectful of the police officer's sensibility. It is not the public's responsibility to keep their feelings and emotions in check. The police do not get to choose who is worthy of help and who is not. The police do not get to be vindictive because they feel disrespected. The police do not get to play judge, jury, and executioner. Like the teacher, parent, or babysitter dealing with an out of control child, they must remain, calm, focused, compassionate, and committed to doing what's best for those they are beholden to look out for.

A friend of mine who is an attorney put it perfectly by saying, “Police should NEVER, EVER be allowed to respond to provocation or violence in the same way as you or I might if we were provoked. Police have extra-ordinary training, resources, skills, organization and weapons that ordinary citizens do not. In a functioning society, this extraordinary might must be accompanied by extraordinary responsibility. Police MUST exercise even more restraint and discipline precisely because they are police. They are not allowed to react emotionally and to lash out with their superior force. If they do, they are not fit for their job. If the system that sustains their jobs encourages or allows them to lash out with their superior force, then the system has failed and must be changed.”

It's not enough to demand the police stop murdering suspects, brutalizing protesters, and abusing power. We must demand that ALL police officers (from incoming cadets to longstanding veterans) be psychologically evaluated on a regular basis to ensure they are fit for duty. Anybody with ties to or exhibiting the behavior of white supremacist groups needs to be removed from the police force entirely. And that's just for starters. They need to be held to the highest scrutiny because they can literally kill anyone at any time, whether intentionally or by accident and whether they have just cause or not.

People are dying at the hands of those sworn to protect them. And even if they're not your children, they're somebody's child.

Aborting Abortion?

There’s been a lot of talk about defunding Planned Parenthood lately. It seems like there always is, but it’s certainly in the forefront of public discussion at the moment. Apparently, some enterprising self-appointed vigilantes went undercover to record (and, subsequently, strategically edit) incriminating footage of Planned Parenthood. Regardless of the content of evidence and whether or not it’s authentic, here’s something they (and you) should consider: If you want to prevent people from having abortions, shutting down Planned Parenthood is a completely backwards and self-defeating way to go about it.

The vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is provide birth control and other preventative measures to cut down on unwanted pregnancies (and thus cut down on abortions). For crying out loud, that’s what the words “planned parenthood” mean. If you eliminate the resources provided by Planned Parenthood from people with limited means, unwanted pregnancies will rise and, proportionally, the number of abortions will skyrocket (as will the number of dangerous unlicensed “back-alley” abortions). To look at the even bigger picture, an increase in unwanted pregnancies means poverty will also go up, as will welfare, crime, unemployment, child abuse/neglect, and countless other social ills. You want that?

Another thing that perplexes me about such vocal opponents of abortion is how almost none of them back their beliefs up with action. The next time somebody spouts off about how evil abortion is and how it must be stopped at all costs, ask them how many children they’ve adopted (or even fostered). Ask them how much time they’ve spent volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers or shelters for unwed mothers (There’s a list of them state-to-state here). Ask them what they’ve done to help victims of rape or incest. Ask them what they’re doing to educate people (especially teenagers) about birth control. From my experience, most of them seem to find it perfectly adequate to say “I pray for them.” Gee, thanks. How very noble and self-sacrificing of you. Pray in one hand and piss in the other and see which fills up faster.

If you’d rather curse the dark than light a candle, that’s your prerogative. If you wanna complain about pollution without even bothering to pick up the litter in your own neighborhood, you have that right. However, you don’t get to act all righteous and superior when all you’re doing is bitching. You also don’t get to say you care about the unborn or that you care about single mothers or that you care about orphaned children because you don’t. You just hate abortion. Hate never helps.

The 10 Most Under-Rated Films of the 90's

Five years ago, in January of 2010, I started this blog as a New Year’s resolution of sorts. Since then, it’s been largely neglected (although, I was pleased with myself for reporting on the year of the Golden Ticket in its entirety without missing a single installment), but I suppose it’s better to have written a little and been pleased with it rather than written a lot and felt like I was overdoing it. Looking back at the first article I posted, entitled “The 10 Most Under-Rated Films of the Past Decade,” I still feel it was a pretty strong start. So, I thought at this half-decade mark, I’d write something similar.

Since we’re only five years into the “’teens,” a recap of contemporary underrated gems seems premature, so I thought I’d leap back an extra decade and revisit the overlooked masterpieces of the 90’s. Compiling the list was a bit of a chore since I had to think back on some of my favorites from 20 years ago that strike me as unappreciated by the masses. It’s an imperfect list, but a fair and just one all the same and I had a great time revisiting these nostalgic treasures. I’ve arranged them alphabetically so as not to show favoritism (not to mention ranking them in order of personal preference is a virtual impossibility). If you haven’t seen ’em, do yourself a favor and check out these modest underdogs from the decade that gave us grunge, the internet, and Quentin Tarantino.

Critical Care (1997): When Sidney Lumet died in 2011, eulogists had a bevy of incredible motion pictures spanning several decades to remember him by. From 12 Angry Men to Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, Mr. Lumet delivered some uncompromised masterpieces. I think this film is probably my second favorite from his superior repertoire (Dog Day Afternoon being the first). It’s too bad (but not surprising) that it didn’t catch on like so many of his other works. In classic form of Lumet-style satire, this film skewers the seemingly irreversible contamination of the medical profession by law firms and insurance companies in a way that is both hilarious and insightful. With an under-stated “non-all-star” cast, the quirky characters are brought to life in a way that lends disturbing credibility to an absurd scenario making it frighteningly realistic. The story’s relevance even today makes it all the more unsettling.

The Dark Backward (1991): Imagine if David Lynch and Preston Sturges collaborated on a film (and maybe used Terry Gilliam as a consultant) and you begin to get the idea of what this bizarre freakshow entails. This is truly a dark comedy in both visuals and content making it a bit of a trainwreck you can’t look away from. That’s not necessarily bad, but it is most definitely sick. Perhaps the sickest thing about it is how compelling it is. A description would sound like I was just making it up on the spot (and high on something), so I won’t even try. Adam Rifkin wrote and directed this early on in his career showcasing some genuine talent, yet he never made anything even remotely like it again. It seems like a waste to have this film remain such an anomaly by the guy who made it, but I suppose that’s a testament to its originality. I doubt if I could come up with something as odd as this a second time.

Gridlock’d (1997): I remember, at the time this came out, a critic described it as Tim Roth and Tupac Shukar as the Cheech & Chong of heroin. That sounds about right, but don’t let it fool you. It is indeed a very funny film, but, like Critical Care, its message is a powerful indictment of this country’s health system. A year earlier, Trainspotting brought the subject of heroin addiction to the big screen using comedy to illustrate the horrors of overdose and withdrawal. Gridlock’d looks at it from another point of view showing the futility of trying to get clean in a society that has essentially shunned addicts altogether regardless of their earnest attempts at rehabilitation. This message is underlined by a particularly ominous scene where Tupac’s character laments that he feels his “luck is running out.” The film was released about four months after Shakur’s death and is subsequently dedicated to him. I was never really into his music, but this film showed a genuine talent for acting that made me sad his full potential as a thespian would never be fully realized.

The Insider (1999): This film may not seem underrated since it was (rightfully) nominated for seven Academy Awards (including best picture, director, actor, and screenplay), but unlike The Shawshank Redemption, which bombed at the box office, but got nominated for several Oscars and eventually found a huge success through word of mouth after being released on video, The Insider never really found its staying power. I remember seeing the trailer in the theater and thinking it looked like a movie my dad would probably watch but would bore me to tears. A friend insisted I watch it, though, and lent me his copy to emphasize the point. After I watched it, I immediately went out and bought my own copy. This film is almost entirely comprised of talking, but it is endlessly riveting and wonderfully exciting, like an action movie with no violence. It’s hard to pick a favorite scene because every bit of it is so thoroughly satisfying. Furthermore, I think it contains the best performance of Russell Crowe’s career and Al Pacino’s greatest onscreen rant ever (which is really saying something).

Nothing to Lose (1997): Everybody I know who saw this movie said they were surprised by how funny it was. I’d say that’s probably because it stars Martin Lawrence, who (like Rob Schneider and Dane Cook) seems to have set a precedent that any movie he’s in must be embarrassingly horrible. The truth is there’s a very short list of films that have made me laugh until I was brought to tears and this is one of them. In fact, I’ve seen this movie many, many times and it still makes me laugh hysterically despite knowing exactly what’s coming. Most impressive, though, is how it seems to do so much with so little. It’s an unassuming film with a simple premise: Desperate Martin Lawrence carjacks a despondent Tim Robbins who in turn kidnaps Lawrence and the two of them pull a heist together. Dopey as that may sound, there are some clever subplots, lots of unexpected gags, and a surprising amount of character depth for a film of such modest aspirations, but it all works and it holds up well after multiple viewings. Best of all, the filmmakers showed enough tactful restraint to not make a series of sequels. I have a tremendous amount of respect for a film willing to allow itself to be a silly comedy, do it well, and be fine with leaving it at that.

RoboCop 2 (1990): Here’s where I might lose a number of you, but hear me out. As this is a list of underrated films, I thought it appropriate to include a movie I felt was unfairly chided by critics and audiences alike. I’ll admit, I didn’t think much of RoboCop 2 when I saw it in theaters. And, no – it’s not a great movie by any means. But, as far as sequels go, it’s not that bad. In fact, the more I watch it, the more I like it. First of all, I give the filmmakers props for not just basically re-making RoboCop.* That would have been really easy for them to do and they probably would have made even more money. However, instead of amping up the violence and gore, they instead amped up the political and economic commentary thus making it a more socially relevant film rather than settling for a mind-numbing action flick. That may be why audiences rejected it. Of course, action, violence, gore, and mayhem are all in there too and, while it may not be as shocking or clever as the original, the spirit is still intact. Apparently, this film was a production nightmare fraught with re-writes and re-shoots and re-edits (which is kind of funny since RoboCop himself goes through similar changes and upgrades throughout the film – art imitates life and vice versa) and, while the film seems a bit patchy at times, it’s pretty well put together, considering. That in itself is a small miracle. Too many cooks in the kitchen is never a good thing, but it’s nice to recognize when things don’t turn out nearly as bad as they could have.

*Incidentally, the RoboCop remake that came out last year was way worse than RoboCop 2.

Swimming with Sharks (1994): When Kevin Spacey received an Academy Award for The Usual Suspects, some say his performances in Se7en and this film (all released within the same year) likely helped influence his win. I agree. Although, out of those three films, I think Swimming with Sharks contains his best work. Spacey plays the relentlessly abusive Machiavellian producer Buddy Ackerman with such immoral glee, it’s clear the character not only knows he’s evil, but revels in it. Spacey’s talents really shine through in the scenes where the story makes some particularly dark twists. He shifts from comedy to drama seamlessly and without altering the integrity of the character. Supposedly based on real-life producer Joel Silver, this film comes across as a very personal and passionate open letter to Hollywood exposing the dark underbelly that everybody knows about but few people acknowledge openly. The overall mantra of the film is “What do you really want?” but more specifically, it’s asking “How much of your soul are you willing to sell?” With that, the film feels a bit like a warning, not just to people contemplating a career in Hollywood, but to the people already there.

Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead (1995): Apparently, this script was written long before Reservoir Dogs ever saw the light of day, but wasn’t greenlit until Pulp Fiction paved the way for a variety of wannabees. The film’s a bit heavy-handed with its “too cool for school” catch phrases and the characters are clichéd to the point of almost being cartoons, but this movie is wickedly entertaining and quite satisfying. It helps that the cast is populated by a who’s-who of character actors from independent film lending it instant credibility. A group of semi-retired criminals are brought together for a job they end up botching and then given a grace period of 48 hours before the kingpin who hired them (played by the always reliably creepy Christopher Walken) rubs them out. Things become a bit existential when each of them choose a different path. One tries to run, one tries to hide, one tries to fight back, one accepts his fate and does nothing, and so on. It’s an interesting mix of what-ifs and has some truly inspired moments. Inevitably lost in the morass of the fallout of Tarantino plagiarists, this film deserved better.

Twenty Bucks (1993): The story behind this film is as charming as the film itself. The script was originally written in 1935, but wasn’t discovered until after the screenwriter’s death in 1990. His son updated the script for the 90’s and the combined result was this movie – a movie told from the point of view of a twenty dollar bill illustrating the subtle yet significant impact petty cash has on our lives. The story is pretty thorough in contemplating its options and the bill in question sees about as much action as Wile E. Coyote. A great ensemble cast (most of whom were unknown at the time but are very recognizable now) of characters walk in and out of seemingly unrelated scenes playing major parts in some vignettes and minor ones in others. If you pay close attention to the relationships of the characters, this film will make you think (and wonder) about the peripheral people in your own life and how they affect you. It’s actually quite romantic in that sense.

Zero Effect (1998): This is a brilliant contemplation of how a Sherlock Holmes type would behave in the modern world. The criminally underused Bill Pullman plays Daryl Zero, a private investigator so ingenious, he can solve mysteries almost instantaneously. Unfortunately, he’s also a shut-in with severe obsessive compulsive disorder who is so socially inept, he must pretend he’s other people to function in public. Ben Stiller is the Watson to his Holmes, serving as a liaison to clients and general errand boy. The movie is pretty funny, but its real strength comes from the mystery itself (which I will not reveal here). Like Adam Rifkin (writer/director of The Dark Backward), for some reason, Jake Kasdan (writer/director of this film) went in a completely different direction with all of his subsequent films, sadly settling for low-brow, gross-out comedies instead of smart, thoughtful ones like this. I guess you gotta go where the money is, but Zero Effect is so inspired, it’s disappointing that it didn’t do well enough to justify more like it.

I fear that, immediately after posting this, I’ll be plagued with thoughts of “Oh, yeah! That was a good one, too,” but, as I said before, I think this is a nice representation of flicks that have become unfairly forgotten. I’d invite readers to enlighten me as to what some of your favorites from the 90’s were that may have slipped through the cracks as well. After all, if I’ve never heard of them, how would I know how good they are?

Lucky Number 2013

I usually wait until March to “finalize” my top ten list of favorite movies from the previous year for two reasons: One, to wait and see what the Academy Awards do first. Two, I need the first few months of the new year to see whatever films I missed before ranking the final tally. This year, with my Golden Ticket, was certainly an exception. I saw so many movies already that there was no need to catch up on missed ones, but I had to take the extra time just to recap them all. In the average year, I see what amounts to about one movie a week, so the grand total is usually about 52 by March. I also keep track of films I’m interested in seeing, but haven’t yet, and my “surplus” averages anywhere from 30 to 50. This year, I saw 84 films and have less than 10 on my unseen list. Definitely a record and one that will probably stand indefinitely (unless I win another year of free movies or there’s a nuclear war and I’m stuck in a bomb shelter containing every film made that year).

Obviously, with that much of an overflow, it was a nearly impossible task to rank the movies in order of preference. Luckily, my main favorites stood out pretty clearly, but it was still pretty tough to narrow it down. Since this was such a unique year, I considered doing a top twenty list instead, but it just didn’t seem to have the same level of reverence, I suppose for the same reason I resent the Oscars’ new 10-nominee policy. So, I’m sticking with ten favorites. And here they are:

#10: Fruitvale Station – Every year there’s at least one major Oscar snub and this year it seemed to fall squarely on Fruitvale Station (although overlooking Monsters University for best animated feature is a pretty big oversight as well). As I said in my pre-Oscars post, Fruitvale Station is so convincingly re-created, it plays almost like a documentary. Every aspect of it is superb: Writing, acting, directing, cinematography, editing, everything. This film deserved nominations in all of those categories and more. What’s most insulting is that only nine films were nominated for best picture this year, meaning the Academy thought it was better for there to remain a vacant slot rather give Fruitvale Station a shot at the title. Disgraceful. I’m especially perplexed because it was not only a fantastic film, but it was (a) based on a true story (over half of this year’s nominations for best picture were based on true stories), and (b) was relevant to current events (in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting) making it a strong social parable. Oh, well. Great films being unappreciated by award committees is nothing new, but it’s a shame when the result is less people seeing it. So, do yourself a favor and see Fruitvale Station.

#9: Philomena – Here’s a true story that actually was given credit where credit was due. I didn’t know too much about it going in and may not have bothered with it had I been told that it was about a woman looking for her long lost son given up for adoption. My sister-in-law said she was real interested in seeing it and it was playing at the theater I volunteer at, so I checked it out to let her know how it was. I loved it, so it was as good an outcome as one can hope for going into a movie cold. Speaking personally, I’m a big fan of anything that shines a light on the hypocrisy and corruption of organized religion and skewers it effectively, but that wasn’t what made this movie great. It’s definitely a character story and the characters are very interesting and sympathetic. In hindsight, I was surprised at how funny the film was, given the melancholy subject matter. It was roundly entertaining and actually made me want to read the book. I probably won’t get around to it, but I would like to watch the film again.

#8: Zero Charisma – I played Dungeons & Dragons once when I was in grade school. I lost interest in it real fast, though, because the “Dungeonmaster” (or is it “Dragonmaster?”) had a bit of a god complex and seemed to enjoy toying with the rest of us. At one point, I accused him of just making it up as he went along and creating a game that couldn’t be won purely for the sake of his own amusement. He got really pissed and I stopped playing. This is a movie about him in adult form. It’s a tough sell for a movie to have a protagonist that the audience really doesn’t like, but it works here, because that’s the whole point. I’m not sure why I liked it so much (certainly not because I’m into RPG’s, because I’m not), but I think maybe because it was so honest. All too often in movies, when the hero is an outcast, they paint it as though they are simply misunderstood victims. In real life, they’re usually outcasts because they are downright unlikeable people who consequently alienate themselves. Napoleon Dynamite was like this. So was Eagle vs. Shark. These characters were people who created their own misery, made other people miserable, and yet were audacious enough to blame their misfortune on external circumstances. I have tremendous respect for any movie that plays fair by not whitewashing the truth and remains entertaining while doing it. It’s even better when the movie is funny, and I thought Zero Charisma was hilarious.

#7: Captain Phillips – I feel like I’ve written too much about this movie already (since I saw it at Cinetopia twice and included it in my Oscar essay in January), so I hope I don’t repeat myself too much in talking about it again. In a nutshell, I suppose this is as close as any of us will (hopefully) get to knowing what it is like to be kidnapped by Somali pirates. It’s a tense film that escalates to the point where the ending feels almost like an act of mercy. The end is a bit of a surprise, too. The surprise isn’t in what happens (if you know anything about the story, you already know Captain Phillips survives), but how it makes you feel. I’ve heard a number of people remark that they weren’t expecting to cry at the finale because action films rarely bring about that kind of reaction. But whatever tears you may experience are not because there’s a heartfelt reunion with the captain’s wife or because beloved characters get killed or anything as simple as that. It’s because what we’ve seen is so traumatizing, they are tears of compassion and perhaps even some pity. Tears for living in a world where things like this can (and do) happen. That’s powerful stuff.

#6: The Wolf of Wall Street – This is film is classic Scorsese cranked up to eleven. One could even consider it the third part of a Scorsese trilogy about the inevitable downfall of a criminally Machiavellian rise to power (GoodFellas being the trilogy’s first entry and Casino being the second). A fellow movie fan labeled this one as “Caligula on cocaine” and that’s pretty much right on the money. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such a hedonistic film in my life and it’s pretty exhilarating in the same “guilty pleasure” way Jackass was. The film has gotten a lot of flack saying it glorifies this kind of lifestyle, but I don’t believe it condoned the things it showed anymore than Captain Phillips condoned piracy. In fact, I think suggesting this film glorifies such reprehensible behavior says more about the accusers than it does about the filmmakers. It certainly didn’t make me want to go out and become a stockbroker and screw innocent people out of money and then spend it on drugs and prostitutes and wreck cars and get divorced and find myself arrested and nothing to show for it in the end. I had fun watching it happen to someone else, though.

#5: 2 Guns – Now that we’re in the top half of my list of favorite films from 2013, we graduate from award-worthy empirically “good” films to the “fun” stuff. As I said in my original review of the film, 2 Guns harkens back to the days of the mid-80’s when action films were fun and silly and felt more like amusement park rides than actual movies, when there was as much humor as violence and, even when they didn’t particularly make sense and defied all reasonable plausibility, you didn’t care because you were having way too much of a good time. In 2 Guns, we’ve got people walking away from explosions in slow-motion, arguments manifested as car chases, a stampede of cattle during a shoot-out, and even a scene where Mark Wahlberg literally farts on one of the badguys. If this doesn’t sound like a movie you’d enjoy… well, I was gonna say “Don’t see it,” but I’m more inclined to say “Lighten up.” I saw it on my birthday and I couldn’t have picked a better film to celebrate being alive.

#4: Elysium – This film got a mixed reception from critics and audiences and I can only assume it’s because District 9 came first and some people thought Neill Blomkamp’s sophomore opus didn’t measure up. I enjoyed District 9, but I liked Elysium even more. I remember some friends saying other friends of theirs didn’t care for it (one of them calling it “Elysi-dumb” and probably patting himself on the back for being so witty), but I implored my friends to see it anyway. Most of them liked it, too. So, I’m not sure where the disconnect is. Just a question of apples and oranges, I guess. With that in mind, I find it difficult to think of ways to talk you into checking this out, if you haven’t already. Ranking it as number 4 out of 84 movies I saw last year is enough of an endorsement, I suppose. But, for the sake of comparison, I liked it more than Pacific Rim and Oblivion and even Iron Man 3 (all of which were pretty decent sci-fi films as well). The action was good, the story was interesting, the special effects were absolutely incredible, and it kept me guessing. Maybe there’s not as much of an audience for science fiction as there used to be, but for my money, this is about as good as it gets.

#3: The Heat – Like Philomena, I sort of stumbled into seeing The Heat. Although, unlike Philomena, I knew what The Heat was about and wasn’t particularly interested in seeing it to begin with. Not because it came across as a chick flick, but because the trailers didn’t strike me as particularly funny. Even the red-band trailer (which pretty much just showed the same jokes with more swear words), didn’t have much to offer. That’s a bad sign for a comedy. Somehow, though, this film managed to be almost the funniest one of the year (second only to my #1 pick). Most impressively, it’s not the kind of comedy that’s only funny in places where the successful gags compensate for the weak ones. This movie is consistently funny from start to finish and it’s hard to pick a favorite part. A great deal of it has to do with casting. Sandra Bullock is one of the most thoroughly likable actresses today (and, as such, it was a stroke of genius for Alfonso Cuarón to cast her in Gravity, given it was essentially a one-woman show) and Melissa McCarthy’s been on a hot streak lately. The combination of these two absolutely kill it and it doesn’t hurt that the script is strong to begin with. The film did well when it came out, but you don’t hear people talking about it now as they did when Bridesmaids came out on DVD. There were two other comedies this year that made a lot of noise and featured almost entirely male casts (This Is the End and Anchorman 2) and I frankly thought they both kinda sucked. The arrogant, self-indulgent comedy of those two films could learn a thing or two from The Heat and the women in it.

#2: Star Trek Into Darkness – As far as sci-fi films go, this one might have been chided even more than Elysium was. For starters, Star Trek fans are almost impossible to please (as are all hardcore fans of any geek subculture) because they have their own “rules” of what’s allowed and what’s possible. I don’t really care what they think, though. This movie was a blast. It was a bit heavy-handed with the massive destruction (a point of contention I had with Man of Steel) and there were a great deal of “camera-winking” references peppered throughout, but I ultimately felt like those were part of the fun. I got the same enjoyment out of it that I got from 2 Guns, making it one of the best times I had at the movies last year. I loved the previous Star Trek and I liked this one even more and I’m eagerly anticipating the next one. Anybody who disagrees with me can go sulk in their own misery for all I care.

#1: The World’s End – I saw this film three times in the theater and I would’ve watched even more. Half an hour in, it was already my favorite movie of the year. Immediately after seeing it, I must have texted a dozen people telling them they had to see it, too. And, indeed, most of them texted me back after they did see it saying something to the effect of “You weren’t kidding, that was amazing.” It’s somewhat of a movie miracle since it succeeds so effectively as a comedy and an action spectacular and a science-fiction thriller and a kung-fu movie and a post-apocalyptic adventure and a drinking game. I’m pleased that, in a year when I saw every movie that was conceivably worth seeing, the best one seemed almost as though it had taken what worked so well from all the other ones and combined it into one masterful cyclone of awesomeness. I don’t know what else to say, except thank you Edgar Wright and company!

So, that was my 2013 as far as the best of the best. Since this was such a unique year, I thought (in lieu of a top twenty) I’d mention a few other movies that stood out for one reason or another. I’ll probably never see this many movies in a single year ever again, so I might as well make my annual report as thorough as I can:

Worst movie of the year (by far): Upstream Color – I hated this movie so much, I actually felt violent afterwards.

Most underrated: Oldboy – This did not deserve to flop anywhere near as badly as it did. In fact, as far as remakes go, it’s actually pretty good.

Biggest disappointment: A Good Day to Die Hard – I actually liked Die Hard 4 and was impressed by how earnest they were in remaining loyal to the franchise, but this one didn’t even try.

Nicest surprise: The Purge – Wasn’t expecting much, but this turned out to be the best horror film of the year.

Most squandered potential: Last Vegas – Robert DeNiro, Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Kline in the same movie and this was the best they could do?

Most mixed-feelings: Her – Brilliant in places, lame in others. What did you think?

Most impressive technical feat: Gravity – If there’s one movie that deserves to be seen in IMAX 3-D, it’s this one.

Best kids’ movie for adults: Monsters University – Leave it to PIXAR.

Most original story from a tired genre: Warm Bodies – If you’re gonna make a zombie movie, you’d better do something new and interesting with it and this one’s pretty clever.

The only movie I’ve ever been to where I was the only person in the entire theater: Delivery Man – Ironically, the movie wasn’t that bad (but it wasn’t that good, either).

And, finally: Even though it wasn’t in my top ten (as far as personal favorites go), I can honestly say with a clear conscience that 12 Years a Slave did indeed deserve to win the Oscar for Best Picture of the year. So, in that instance, justice prevailed.

So, in closing, I should say if there’s a movie in 2013 you’re curious about and want to know what I thought of it, just ask. Chances are I saw it.