Better Off Dead

If you are of a certain age/generation (mostly likely Generation X-which I am a member of) than you’re probably a John Cusack fan. This fandom is mostly due to 3 films- The Sure Thing (1985), Better Off Dead (1985), & Say Anything...(1989). I would like to take a closer look at each film.                                                           Up next is Better Off Dead (1985). I like this film. Its just a lot of fun. The story is a variation of the standard love story. Boy has girlfriend, they break up, he’s depressed until he meets a new girl who likes him & eventually they get together. What makes this film so much fun is the film’s skewed logic which is supplied by the film’s writer/director Savage Steve Holland.  He got his start in animation & that’s the kind of logic this film has.  Here are a few examples of that logic- a few guys ask the guy (Lane Myer) if its ok to go out with his ex-girlfriend, there’s a paper boy who is terrorizing Lane because he wants his monthly fee of $2, Lane’s dad sets him up on date with his Law Partners daughter Joanne Greenwald. Lane doesn’t want to go out with her because she wears head gear because she wears braces. She comes over to his house & informs Lane that she doesn’t want to go with him either. She then pulls out a calculator and figures out how much he would have spent on their date. She prints a receipt & says if he pays the total they don’t have to go out. He writes her check (if only you could do this in real life!)   And two Japanese brothers who are always challenging Lane to drag races, one doesn’t speak English & the other speaks English as Howard Cosell. What makes this gag really fun is the car the brothers drive has a loud speaker attached to the roof so everyone can hear the brother talking like Howard Cosell. As I mentioned Lane is depressed so attempts to kill himself but is never successful. He attempts to hang himself but he uses the door that leads to the kitchen from garage and doesn’t use a particular strong item to hang himself. He tries to throw himself off a bridge that has a road underneath it but he falls into a garbage truck. He then he wants to light himself on fire with a jar of gasoline. He is interrupted before he can do so because he is called to diner. So he takes this jar to the dinner table where a neighbor (Mrs. Smith) sees it & mistakes it for homemade liquor. She drinks it, then lights a cigarette & which results in her face being burned. The neighbor unintentionally supplies Lane with his next love interest. She has son named Ricky & they are housing a female French exchange student named Monique (Diane Franklin) which is how Lane meets her. Monique is the ideal girlfriend-pretty, smart (she does speak two languages), handy (she helps Lane fix up his 1967 Camaro), & she loves sports (particular the Dodgers). She doesn’t like the Smiths so she pretends that she can’t speak English.  This is the leading lady Cusack has had the most chemistry with. I wish they had made more films together. The rest of the cast is also strong. The two who particularly stand out are Curtis Armstrong as Lane’s best friend Charles De Mar who wants to get drunk or high, & David Ogden Stiers as Lane’s dad Al Myer who can’t figure out Lane & tries to talk to him in the lingo of the 80’s but gets it wrong. Further proof of the film 80’s setting is the reason Lane’s girlfriend breaks up with him is to go out with an athlete-the captain of the school’s ski team- Roy Stalin. Roy has a huge claim to fame in their town (the fictional Greendale in "the state of Northern California”) he’s the only person to have skied the most dangerous ski course in the town the K-12. If you’re thinking that going to be play an important part of the film’s plot you would be correct. Before the film’s climax at the K-12 Lane gets back at the Japanese brothers by beating them at drag racing with his Camaro. As for the climax at the K-12 Lane has to take on Stalin by sking the K-12. You should know the outcome. What makes the outcome more remarkable is Lane does it one ski! This is where the film’s skewed logic makes some more welcomed appearances. After the outcome the Japanese brother who sounds like Howard Cosell interviews Lane. Lane has to rush off because Monique is being carried away by Ricky. Lane stops him &they commence to dual with ski poles! Lane wins & he carries her off. They end up at Dodger stadium where they are last seen making out.  However the films skewed logic makes one last appearance because the paperboy is seen riding up on them on his bike. A fitting end to a film that is able to balance an 80 cliché (the ski challenge), a love story, & skewed logic. Truly enjoyable! 

The Sure Thing

If you are of a certain age/generation (mostly likely Generation X-which I am a member of) than you’re probably a John Cusack fan. This fandom is mostly due to 3 films- The Sure Thing (1985), Better Off Dead (1985), & Say Anything...(1989). I would like to take a closer look at each film.                                                First up-The Sure Thing-I love this film. I can’t understand why this isn’t a better known. It has everything a beloved/classic film is supposed to have-a good story, great characters, good direction(courtesy of Rob Reiner who was in the beginning stages of series of very good movies he would direct that would culminate in a Few Good Men) , comedy, & romance. I have made it my mission to make this film better known. The plot (courtesy of Jeremy Rasmussen via IMDB) is College freshman Walter (Gib) Gibson decides to go cross country to visit his friend in California during winter break. Awaiting there is a bikini-clad babe whom his friend assures him is a "sure thing". Meanwhile, Allison, a cute (but somewhat anal retentive) girl at Gib's college has also decided to head out to Cal. to see her boyfriend during break. Gib and Allison had a bad encounter, but now Gib and Allison are thrust together on a road trip from hell, and somewhere along the way, they find each other's company to be tolerable. Now, what will become of Gib's "sure thing?" Sounds like a teen 80’s sex comedy except there’s no female nudity (more on that later) & the closest to sex the two main characters get is sharing a bed while traveling & waking up one morning cuddling. But just because there’s no sex shown doesn’t mean that sex isn’t on the mind of most characters mind. That’s the topic most talked about in the film. In fact when we see/meet Walter (Gib) Gibson he’s trying to pick up a girl. Through he is unsuccessful its one of the most creative attempts you’ll ever hear. I couldn’t do it justice by describing it, so here’s is the encounter-

  Gib: Consider outer space. You know, from the time of the first NASA mission, it was clear that outer space has a clear effect on the human psyche. Why, during the first Gemini mission, thought was actually given to sending up a man and a woman... together.

Julie: [interested] Really?

Gib: A cosmic 'Adam and Eve,' if you will. Bound together by fate, situated on the most powerful rocket yet known to man. It's giant thrusters blasting them into the dark void, as they hurtle towards their final destination: the gushing wellspring of life itself.  How would you like to have a sexual encounter so intense it could conceivably change your political views?

After that failed attempt we meet another important character in the film Gib’s best friend & as it is shown in the plot description the character who sets the plot into motion-Lance (played by Anthony Edwards with hair & no glasses!) You can totally (how 80’s is that!) understand why these two are friends. They complement each other beautifully. Gib as you can tell from the pick-up attempt is of intellectual bent, Lance isn’t, he puts more valve on having fun, is confident, likeable, & a very good friend because he gets Gib, doesn’t try to change him & wants to help him.  Its a shame these two have never worked together again they have wonderful chemistry.  But just because Gib is an intellectual doesn’t mean he is up for some fun, far from it.  He drinks (this movie is where I learned about shot-gunning a beer), loves his junk food, really wants to be with the ladies, & helps his roommate pen a letter to the editor of Penthouse magazine.  The letter is featured in one of the funniest scenes in the movie. The scene is Gib is woken up by his roommate-Jimbo (played by Joshua Cadman in a fun performance) in just enough time to get to his 9 o’clock English class. Gib has been working on essay. In his haste to get to class he grabs his roommate’s letter instead. This is reveled when the Professor reads the letter aloud to the class! Ah Professor Taub, as played Viveca Lindfors (in a beautiful performance) is everything you would want in a college professor. Full of life, immensely likable, really desirous to help her students, every scene she’s in is a joy to watch. This is a character that exists. Never does it seem like she’s acting. Screen acting at its finest.  Which brings us to Daphne Zuniga as Allison Bradbury, pretty but so button up I don’t see why anyone would like her. She’s someone you put up & you’d feel bad for not liking because she’s not trying to be unlikeable its just her demeanor make her so. Everything she does is planned out & noted in her day planner which she always carries with her. The day planner is source a humor & key plot device. After Gib has convinced her to help tutor him in English (a great scene that features a great comic monologue by Cusack & sees him jump into a pool fully clothed to sell the point) she looks in her day planner to find the time. After reading out the day’s activities she tells Gib 8 o’clock. Because she has such things as the time she’s gonna take her shower & the time she’s gonna call her boyfriend written in her day planner, Gib replies “Sorry that’s the time I re-arrange my sock drawer.” Allison takes offense to this, but Gib agrees to the time. They meet at the library on a Friday night but Gib is wound up & using an access panel climbs up to the roof. Allison follows & they have a really bad encounter. It starts off well, they gaze at the stars & Gib demonstrates his knowledge of astronomy.  Allison is impressed & lets her guard down. But because Gib is so lonely, they’re in a romantic setting, Gib misinterprets this & attempts to pick up Allison by using some lines his roommate gave him. Gib then really compounds this mistake & tries to kiss Allison. She understandable believes that this was Gib’s intent all along, so she pushes him down. Thinking that she has hurt him, Allison than ask Gibb if he is hurt, he replies-“No.” She then kicks him before leaving. They then find themselves find themselves on the road trip to California (Gib to meet his sure thing & Allison to see her boyfriend) where they are forced to hitch-hike (obviously nothing that would be in a movie nowadays) as result of another vehicle they encounter. One of the guys in a truck moons them. Gib thinks its hysterical & starts laughing. Allison thinks its stupid. Gib gets onto her about being repressed so she responds by flashing the guys her boobs. The couple that is driving them is ticketed by a cop & in his anger the boyfriend kicks them. They get to California but because they have gotten to know each other during the course of their travels they like each other. Gib meets his sure thing & the last we see of them they are kissing. Gib’s encounter with his sure thing is reveled in an essay in their English class. The essay revels they didn’t sleep together. The whole class is surprised & Allison then revels she broke up with her boyfriend. Gib & Allison then have a proper kiss under the stars which is the film’s last scene. I hope my love for this film inspires whoever read this to see this film. I’m pretty confident if they do they will like it.

Say Anything

If you are of a certain age/generation (mostly likely Generation X-which I am a member of) than you’re probably a John Cusack fan. This fandom is mostly due to 3 films-The Sure Thing (1985), Better Off Dead (1985), & Say Anything...(1989). I would like to take a closer look at each film.                                                                                Last & certainly least is Say Anything...(1989). I think this film is highly overrated. Yes a lot of women especially those of my generation will tell this is one of the most romantic films ever made & they will cite the scene with Lloyd Dobler (Cusack) holding up the boom box under Diane Court (Ione Skye) window as it plays “In Your Eyes” as a big reason why. Ah the beauty of Hollywood magic! If you have seen the behind the scenes footage of that scene the real song that Cusack played on the boom box was Fishbone’s “Turn the Other Way.” But the film’s writer/director Cameron Crowe knew that wasn’t right & he kept looking until he found in “In Your Eyes” which obviously was the correct choice. Through I like the scene (and in real life the cops properly would had a talk with Lloyd Dobler about this) one scene does not make a romantic movie.  This is a case where wrong casting almost sinks a movie. Iona Skye isn’t up to the lead role of Diane Court who is described by two of Lloyds friends is “a brain trapped in the body of a game-show hostess.” Iona Skye isn’t pretty enough to be game-show hostess, nor does she comes across as brain. The scene that best illustrates this is her father who runs an old folks home is under investigation by the IRS for filing false tax returns. He isn’t reporting his true income because the IRS believes he’s keeping his residents money after they die. Diane doesn’t believes this so she goes to talk to man who leading the investigation (Philip Baker Hall who gives a wonderful performance. He is both sympathetic & determined to get this person for the crime he is believed to have committed.) She tells him that she thought that by wearing grown-up clothes that he would take her seriously. The problem is she isn’t wearing grown up clothes, she’s wearing the clothes that an 18 year old young lady would wear to hang out with her friends or go out with her boyfriend. The outfit is a white buttoned up shirt with the sleeves rolled up & button up, a pink miniskirt, & keds. This is a young lady who was the valedictorian of her graduating class and she’s going to England on a fellowship and this what she wears to go talk to IRS agent in charge of her father’s case? Was there something wrong with her graduation dress or the outfit she wore to her interview for the fellowship? What a shame because John Cusack is so right as Lloyd Dobler. This is probably his best performance. Equally good is John Mahoney as Diane’s Court father Jim Court. He seems like the kind of dad anyone would want until we learn his terrible secret. He is indeed keeping his residents money after they die. But he isn’t doing it for himself; he’s doing it for his daughter. He doesn’t want to her to want for anything. Talk doing a horrible thing for a noble reason. There’s a great scene involving this IRS subplot. Jim Court’s attorney is eating take-out food at the desk of one of the IRS agent investigating the case. He (Jim Court) has decided to plead guilty to the charges so the attorney & the IRS agent are bartering over jail time (which the IRS wants & gets) & the amount of a fine (an amount is agreed upon). What makes this scene so good is there is no emotion between the two. Its presented very matter- of-factly as two people who have done this sort of thing before & will again.  Another strength of the film is the script especially the dialogue. The film is filled with memorable dialogue which the majority does a great job of delivering expect for you guessed it-Iona Skye. Monday morning quarterbacking it there are only two ways to fix this film-replace Iona Skye or flopping the roles. Let’s look at the first option. Who was the appropriate age at this time (1988-89) who are both pretty & smart? I’m not gonna lie I had a hard time with this. I read a book “Pretty In Pink: The Golden Age of Teenage Movies” which was about teen movies of this time period & the author (Jonathan Bernstein) thought Uma Thurmond should have had the role. I also read on the website Pajiba that Jennifer Connelly almost got the part of Diane Court & through I didn’t come up with her once I read it that seems like she would have been the best choice. She certainly fits the part as it was described by Lloyd friends, what a pity she didn’t get the part. If she had or Uma Thurmond had than the film would be very good/great like it should have. The only other option and the one that really intrigues me if they had flopped the parts; in this scenario Lloyd is the valedictorian who has the fellowship to England & Diane Court is an ordinary student who he falls for. This would have worked because you could have her dad not wanting her to fall for a man who isn’t going to be in the country too much longer. You could keep the subplot about the IRS because Jim Court still would have had the same motivation. What’s good about this scenario is Iona Skye could still be Diane Court. The way she plays Diane Court is as a pretty (through not game show hostess pretty) young lady who is earnest, likeable, and has a good heart which totally fits this scenario, not the one that was filmed. Sadly you can’t do this so what you have is a movie that aspires for greatness and could have achieved it if the part of Diane Court had been played by someone else or if the parts had been flopped like I mentioned. Let this be a lesson to anyone making a movie-just like how a good cast/cast member can elevate poor/so-so material, a bad cast/cast member can damage good/great material.

Man Of Steel

“Man of Steel” tried a different approach but still suffered a similar problem to “Superman Returns” because it invited comparisons to not only “Superman the Movie”, but its equally good sequel “Superman II”.  This is an origin movie so we return to Krypton. This time around the mystical quality that pervaded Krypton in the original Superman is replaced by a typical depiction of high advanced civilization that is commonplace in sci-fi/fantasy movies. This terrible decision (taking away the mystical/mythological aspect of Superman) makes it like every sci-fi/fantasy. As a result Man of Steel has meh feeling to it. Its hard to understand why the filmmakers thought that by removing what made Superman (both the character & his universe) unique would work.  The filmmakers made what appeared to be a smart choice by not making Lex Luthor the villain. Instead General Zod & his followers are the only villains in this version of Superman (the first time since Superman III that Lex Luthor didn’t appear in a Superman film). Lex Luthor is never mentioned & there’s only fleeting references to him (the LexCorp skyscraper & a pair of tanker trucks that has the LexCorp painted on them are shown). This decision seemed like good idea; but alas it doesn’t work because this time around General Zod doesn’t work. This is strange because on paper Michael Shannon as General Zod is a great idea! For some reason General Zod in this version of Superman isn’t a good villain.  Perhaps its because his motivation in this film is different than what it was in ‘Superman II’. In this version Zod’s motivation is to use a terraforming "world engine" to transform Earth into a new Krypton and use the codex to repopulate the planet with genetically-engineered Kryptonians, killing all of Earth's indigenous life in the process. Admiral, but it just doesn’t work. General Zod in Superman II just wants a world to rule & he gets that opportunity. What is also curious about General Zod in Man of Steel is he doesn’t seem like a bad ass, whereas in Supeman II he does. What makes this interesting is Michael Shannon is built like a linebacker & Terrance Stamp is built like a slot wide receiver. However, something about Terrance Stamp screams “not to be messed with” & that isn’t the case with Michael Shannon. Also continuing a trend that was started in Superman Returns there’s next to no joy in being a super hero in the DC Movie Universe. Moody super heroes are the trend in super hero films, but with the exception of Batman that is not the M.O. in DC Comic Universe. Why in this film did the filmmakers decide to make an issue of Superman being an Alien. Yes, pretty much everyone knows that the reason for Superman’s powers is because he’s an alien. But the way its treated is similar to a 50’s sci-fi movie where aliens were a menace.  There’s also no time for romance in this Superman film so why did the filmmakers include Lois Lane?  In fact hardly any of the characters have room to breathe. The exceptions being Russell Crowe as Superman’s Biological Dad Jor-El who appears like he had a blast making this film, Kevin Costner as Superman’s Earth Dad Jonathan Kent who brings the right amount of gravitas to the part (through the way he is killed by being sucked into a tornado & waving off Clark Kent/Superman so he wouldn’t reveal his powers by saving him is stupid), Richard Schiff as Dr. Emil Hamilton who just is really likable & believable in this part, Christopher Meloni  as Colonel Nathan Hardy who also bring gravitas and a center to the movie whenever he’s on screen, and Antje Traue  as Faora-Ul  she’s a Krytptonian villan who unlike General Zod is a bad ass. The scenes with her & Meloni crackle with energy & vitality. Her character contributes the only memorable line of dialog of the film- “A good death is its own reward.” The scene where Dr. Hamilton & Col. Hardy sacrifice themselves by flying Superman’s space ship into the Phantom Zone & take most the Krytonian villians with them is especially moving. It reminds us viewers that sometimes in order to save the world a person or persons have to pay the ultimate price to do so. There’s a good scene where Meloni says Traue phrase to her as the ship is headed into the Phantom Zone. That’s pretty sad that all the characters who stick out & help the move the plot along are supporting characters. None of the major characters stick out & they all seem strait jacketed by their roles. This is never more evident than in the much ballyhooed & debated scene where Superman is forced to kill General Zod. This is necessary because its the only way he can save the world. But the way its shot & Superman’s reaction afterwards ruin the impact this scene should have.  You don’t feel anything because its handled badly. In fact after the scene is over hardly any mention is made about that. Think about that, this paragon of virtue –Superman-commits an act that goes totally against everything he believes & yet we don’t get a scene of how he has dealt with the guilt/remorse he probably feels. That’s bad filmmaking & inexcusable.  The film didn’t do well with the critics Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 56% & through it’s the highest grossing Superman film of all-time it only did ok at the box office-$668 million. That was good enough for Warner Bros &DC Entertainment to green light a sequel Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Let’s hope that this Justice League movie (which it is because Wonder Woman, Cyborg, & Aquaman are in it) fixes the problems that were in this film and is the Justice League movie comic book movie fans have been waiting to see. 

Sleepless in Seattle

Summer of 1993 Movies-Sleepless in Seattle

Sleepless in Seattle being summer movie is interesting because it is not what one would consider a summer movie. There's no action, through its funny it wouldn't be consider a comedy, and its genre (romantic comedy)  is all but extinct. Sleepless in Seattle being a summer movie is an example of what is called counter programming in Hollywood. That is when a tv show/movie is released and it is the opposite of what is on that night or this case the opposite of the type of movie that comes in a movie season. Sleepless in Seattle is really two movies in one with one movie being really good and the other movie being ok. Surprisingly its the movie with Meg Ryan that's really strong and the one with Tom Hanks that is ok. In 1993 Tom Hanks wasn't what is he now which is a 2 time Oscar winning actor whose really respected and his movies can be expected to have a strong opening weekend which will make money. His career up to that point had been really up and down. He got his start in the tv show Bosom Buddies but it his role on an episode of Happy Days (in which he played a guy who learned karate so he could get his revenge on the Foz) that lead to his big break on the big screen. Former Happy Days star Ron Howard (now a director) heard about Hanks performance and after seeing it decided to give Hanks a starring role in the film Splash. It was hit and lead to him getting starring parts in movies. He was a few years removed from a notorious flop-The Bonfire of the Vanities. The film he had done before this had been a hit (League of Their Own-1992) so his career was in an uptick. The plot of the film is "Sam Baldwin, a Chicago architect, loses his wife Maggie to cancer. He and his young son Jonah start anew in Seattle, Washington, but Sam continues to grieve. A year and a half later, on Christmas Eve 1992, Jonah—who wants his father to find a new wife—calls in to a radio talk show. Jonah persuades Sam to go on the air to talk about how much he misses Maggie. Hundreds of women from around the country who hear the program and are touched by the story, write to Sam." One of the women who listens to the program is Anne Wilson a reporter for the Baltimore Sun and she is the woman that audiences get to know as she falls for Sam and tries to figure out to meet him.  How 90's is using talk radio as major plot point? Also why someone who is grieving the loss of a spouse would move to Seattle  (the suicide capital of the U.S.) is beyond me. As I mentioned earlier this storyline is ok and that's because almost everyone in it is trying so hard. There's a really touching scene when a co-worker of Sam's gives him the business card for his shriek so Sam can call the shriek. Sam gets angry and shows the co-worker that he has lots of these types of cards. There are two characters in this part of the movie that are really good. One is Rob Reiner who is really amusing as a friend of Tom Hanks character who tries to help his character get used to what its like to date in the 90's. The other is Gaby Hoffman as Jessica the friend of Jonah (the son of Tom Hanks character). She is very believable as this character and is the best character in this part of the movie.  This problem with the Tom Hanks part of the movie really amplifies just how superior the Meg Ryan part of the movie is. Everyone in this section of the movie is believable. Meg Ryan comes across as a likeable person who has gotten their dream job (she's a reporter for the Baltimore Sun) who wants more out of her personal life. She is engaged but its to that stock character in romantic movies of the person who is allergic to everything. Considering how annoying these characters usually are its surprising that Bill Pullman who plays the part really isn't. Fortunately for him better times were around the corner as he would later get the girl in While You were Sleeping (1995) and he would help save the world in the monster hit Independence Day (1996). Also in a bit of good times are ahead foreshadowing is David Hyde Pierce (Frasier) who plays the brother of Meg Ryan who gives her advice on life! A real standout as far as likeable character in this part of the movie is Rosie O'Donnell who has the best line the movie. She works with Meg Ryan at the newspaper and the 2 of them along with 2 male co-workers are talking. One of the male co-workers says " It's easier to be killed by a terrorist than it is to find a husband over the age of 40!" Meg Ryan says that its not true and that there was a book written on how that wasn't true and asks the the male co-workers had read that book. One of then ask had anyone read that book. Rosie O'Donnell character then says "That's right it's not true, but it feels true." Rosie O'Donnell if she had stuck on this track probably would have a very good career as a character actress and it would have been interesting to see if the controversy that has surrounded her would be as big as it is if she had stayed an actress. This movie was one of the first to really embrace pop culture. The pop culture item it really embraced was the Cary Grant film "An Affair to Remember." Both Meg Ryan and Rosie O'Donnell characters are seen crying over the movie in their section of the movie and in the Tom Hanks section of the movie a friend of his wife (Rita Wilson-Mrs. Tom Hanks in real life) is seen crying over the movie. There's comparison between women liking this movie and men liking the Dirty Dozen that at the time seemed like big deal but isn't now. "An Affair to Remember" would go onto to hurt the film because its climax (2 people agree to meet at the top of the Empire State Building) would be how this movie would end but with a twist. The twist is that Jonah (Tom Hanks character's son) receives a letter from Anne in which she mentions meeting there. He sends her letter (which Anne believes is from his Dad) agreeing to this. Thanks to his friend Jessica (whose Mom works at a Travel Agency) he goes there.This could never happen now and it was a problem then. When Sam and Anne do meet at the top of the Empire State Building (with Jonah in attendance) it is pretty magical.  This movie do good with the critics (71% per Rotten Tomatoes) and with the general public (it grossed $227 million).  The film has a great soundtrack that was a wonderful collection of pop standards that was a mixture of singers from the 40's to the 90's. It was beautifully shot by one of the great cinematographers of all-time (Sven Nykvist) who was a multiple Oscar winner best known for the films he did with Ingmar Bergman. This film was a real highlight for its director Nora Ephron who had one of the most interesting lives of anyone who has ever worked in film. "Sleepless in Seattle" is one of the best examples of why its genre-romantic comedies-should still be one of the more popular film genres. Perhaps it will become popular again.

Cliffhanger

Ah the summer movie! The movies that are style over substance, mindless entertainment, the movie equivalent of fast food, while this is often the case; its not always the case. The summer movie even through it seems like it has been around for awhile is relatively young. The summer movie can be traced back to one seminal film-Jaws (1975). I'm not going to get into the history of Jaws because that is well documented in a large number of books, dvds, etc., but I will explain how Jaws set the stage for the summer movie. Jaws like a lot of summer movies was based on a well-known property a novel written by Peter Benchley. It went wildly over schedule and over budget. The primary reason for this was because the movie was shot on the ocean with a mechanical shark that had been built for fresh water and not salt water. In 1975 there was only season to release a potential blockbuster movie and that was the fall. Summer back then was considered the dumping ground for movies like winter is now. The studio releasing Jaws (Universal) decided to see if they could change that in order to make a profit on Jaws. In order to do this they instituted two practices that are now commonplace with summer movies-a wide release (440 theaters) and heavy adverting on tv. Both of these practices played a big hand in Jaws becoming a blockbuster. In fact Jaws was the first film to gross a $100 million dollars and was for a brief time the highest grossing movie of all-time. When Star Wars come out a few years later and over took Jaws as the highest grossing film the summer movie season was officially born. The summer of 1993 is the year that the summer movie hit it stride as 7 films all well known and well received by both the public and the critics were released.  I believe 1993 is best year of summer movies and is the summer movie equivalent of 1939. If you are a movie fan than it common knowledge that 1939 is considered to be the greatest year for film. This makes sense because that year had a lot of films that are considered classics (Gone with the Wind, The Wizard Of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach) that also had some of the greatest movies star ever in them (Clark Gable, Judy Garland, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne).  I know it seems that I'm doing the inverse of 1939 but like the ballyhooed 1939 movies the summer films of 1993 films has some striking similarities. In both cases these movies have actors/actresses who are well known to the average person along with the movies that they appeared in in those years are well known to the average person. The most obvious parallel is that both years were dominated by a single film that were each based on a best selling novel. These films tend to overshadow the other films because of the level of success each film enjoyed but a closer examination will show that were still other compelling enjoyable films that deservedly commanded the spotlight. Sit back, relax as I take you back to the best year of summer films-1993.  

The first of the impressive films that come out in summer of 1993 was Cliffhanger. This is a summer movie at its finest. This is one the most enjoyable movies I have seen.  I love this film. A key reason why this film was so successful and why I like it so much/remember it fondly is that it has one of the greatest trailers in film history. In 1993 there was no internet so it was harder to promote a film on national/global scale. About the best way to do that back then was the to air an ad during a major sporting event like the Super Bowl which this film did. After that trailer aired it turned Cliffhanger into a must see. The trailer also did something that is really hard for a trailer to do it effectively sold the film without giving too much of the film's plot away. This trailer should be required viewing for anyone who putting a film's trailer together. Cliffhanger has a relatively simple plot that is expertly told. The plot is a group of thieves "attempt to steal $100 million dollars in uncirculated $1,000 bills belonging to the U.S. Treasury Department which are in three suitcases via a daring air-to-air transfer but the transfer is foiled by an undercover FBI agent and the three suitcases are lost among the mountains. The suitcases holding the money have beacon locators  but the thieves need expert help locating them in the mountainous terrain." This movie is jam packed with some of the most remarkable action sequences ever seen. The good thing about these action sequences is that they advance the plot they're not just done to distract the audience or for the sake of action.The most intense of these sequences is the opening one which is reminiscent of the opening sequence of a Bond film in that it has little direct bearing to the plot but in this case does provide an interesting back story to the main plot. The sequence is HalTucker (Michael Rooker) who is a mountain climber and rescue ranger is stranded on a narrow peak in the Rockey Mountains, called "The Tower" with a knee injury. He has brought along his girlfriend Sarah who is an inexperienced mountain climber. Along come 2 other climbers and rescue rangers Gabe Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Jessie Deighan (Janine Turner) to rescue them. Hal and Sarah are to be rescued by getting into a helicopter via  a steel wire. Hal does this with no problem. Sarah harness breaks and she is left dangling over a deep chasm. Jessie can't save her because she flying the helicopter & Hal can't because of his injury. So Gabe goes out to save Sarah, but is unsuccessful; her gloved hand slips through Gabe's and she falls to her death.
This description does no justice to how harrowing this sequence is. Other strengths of this film are beautiful cinematography (it was shot in the Italian Alps even through it set in the Rockies) and really good pacing courtesy of director Renny Harlin. Another of the film's strengths is the acting. Say what you will about the film's star,  Sylvester Stallone, you have to respect the fact that he's been really successful in really cutthroat business (Hollywood) for four decades. He's really good in this film and a key reason why it was so successful. This film is an anomaly among Stallone's films in that it was it was hit and didn't get a sequel/start a franchise.  This film should have lead Janine Turner become a bigger deal because she was really good and she has really chemistry with Stallone. Rooker as always was really good and so were most the villains.The exception being the lead villain played John Lithgow. A big reason why he wasn't very good as the villain is that he has a very bad British accent. It is surprising that he was asked/decided to do a British accent and its equally surprising that he's so bad at it.   The film was hit at the box office grossing $255 million and did goodish with the critics (69% per Rotten Tomatoes-I think it should have been much higher). There has been talk of remake but I hope that it never happens because remake more than likely would suck and its highly doubtful that a remake could as good.

 

Jurassic Park

 Summer of 1993 Movies-Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park is one of the best known and loved summer films. Its really not hard to understand why because it has a great concept as it plot-dinosaurs are brought back to life and are put in a theme park for people's enjoyment. It has probably has the most important technological breakthrough to ever hit films as its biggest selling point-cgi-which allows just about anything to be brought to life. The film was based on a novel by Michael Crichton who is one of the most interesting people to have worked in film. He was an MD who got his MD from Harvard. He wrote novels so he could pay for school. His first novels were written under a pseudonym because as he explained in the making of "The Andromeda Strain" (the first novel of his to be turned into a film and the first novel published under his real name) that a key component of grades in Medical School is peer evaluation. And he thought that if his classmates knew he was writer they would think less of him, thus their evaluations would be lower. Even after attaining success and fame under his real name he continued to write books under a pseudonym. Eventually he would write books under his real name. He also became a writer/director. Because he was doing this he didn't write as many novels. By 1989 his writing/directing career was over with because for the most part his films weren't very successful. The Jurassic Park novel came out in 1990 and the film success (he co-wrote the script) allowed him to get back into film-making but mainly as writer/producer. The film grossed $1.03 billion which made it for awhile the most successful film ever made. This was one of the first films that relied heavily on the foreign box office to become a hit.  In fact it was the film's foreign grosses that allowed it to become the highest grossing film. The film also do well with the critics 93% per Rotten Tomatoes. So with this kind of success at both the box office and with critics it has to be good? Depends on what you want from a film. If your looking for a film that is a spectacle than this is the film for you. When the dinosaurs are first seen it is pretty magical. It also has a memorable score by probably the greatest film composer of all-time: John Williams. If on the other hand you want a film that you have an emotional attachment to or a great plot that carries you away than its not. I fall into this camp. The human characters in this film are given no room to breathe. They really serve no purpose except to be killed by the dinosaurs or to give exposition. A real shame considering that 2 of characters when give time are memorable. Those are John Hammond and Dr. Ian Malcolm. John Hammond is the creator of Jurassic Park and he has two of the most famous lines in the film "Spared on expense" and "This park was not built to cater only for the super-rich. Everyone in the world has the right to enjoy these animals." As portrayed by Sir Richard Attenborough he comes across as the kindest grandfather with a real twinkle in his eyes who happens to be a billionaire. But as the film goes on his part diminishes and he is kinda of cast as the villain which also hurts him. Jeff Goldblum has an absolute field day with the part Dr. Ian Malcolm. He serves as the conscience of the film and the Greek chorus. He also has the funniest line in the film via this exchange with John Hammond-
"All major theme parks have delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked!"
 "Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."
What prevents him from dominating the film is he gets hurt (a broken leg) and is given morphine to help with pain. This makes him passive for much of the movie. So positive was the response to this character that when Michael Crichton wrote a sequel called "The Lost World" he made Dr. Ian Malcolm the main character. There was just one small problem he had appeared to killed him off in the original novel. This was explained away by saying that it was untrue. The fact that the acting is weak in this film is surprising given that the film's director Steven Spielberg is well-known for being able to successfully combine strong characters with spectacle. I think the reason the acting is weak is because Spielberg mind wasn't totally on the film when he was making it and because he wasn't physically present when the film was being edited. He was prepping Schindler's List when Jurassic Park was being shot and he was shooting Schindler's List when it was being edited. He edited Jurassic Park via satellite and he left the primary editing up to his friend George Lucas. As many a film lover will tell you and George Lucas will admit strong characters/acting aren't a forte of George Lucas this may explain why the film is heavy on spectacle and light on strong characters/acting. At the end of the day this film was a huge success at the box office, is fondly remembered by many people, was a watershed for special effects, and spawned a successful franchise. The latest entry Jurassic World released in June of this year is already in the top 5 of the highest grossing films of all time and the main theme from the this film recently top the Billboard Classical Digital Songs. An impressive feat that just adds to the legacy this film has attained.