Eric is Quiet

#16 Psycho Directed by Alfred Hitchcock "I hope they are watching...they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, 'Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly...'" Box Office: $32M Domestic IMDB Summary: A Phoenix secretary steals $40,000 from her employer's client, goes on the run and checks into a remote motel run by a young man under the domination of his mother. Why it's So Meaningful to Me: I've already admitted my love for Trey Parker & Matt Stone, but do you want to know who also fought against censorship decades ago? Alfred Hitchcock! Hitchcock's work is praised for his voyeurism, strong camerawork, and meticulous planning, and for good reason. Better yet, many of Hitchcock's elements are at their strongest in Psycho. The production design is wonderful, the acting, with Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates in particular, is astounding, its ending is absolutely flawless, and the usage of visual elements to explain the story and the quiet buildup of each scene is astonishing and a near-textbook definition on how to do visual filmmaking and suspense. However, what really seals the deal for why I love this movie so much was Hitchcock's massive battle between censorship during production. For those who don't know, when Hollywood movies were in full effect and making big money, there was no MPAA. Instead, there was the Motion Picture Production Code, though many prefer to call it the Hays Code. It was a list of guidelines that told filmmakers and film studios to not have certain elements that would be risque, adult, or provocative, which included bad language, nudity, or offending religion or race. As you can imagine, it was very limiting for filmmakers with bold and unique ideas. When Hitchcock discovered the 1959 novel Psycho, he had yearned to make the movie adaptation of the story, but with two catches: he had an abnormally small budget and had to use the production crew of his television show, and he had to face the censorship board, who weren't very fond of dark or racy material. But Hitchcock insisted on poking holes at their flawed logic. He would show specific scenes again and again, and get different results each time; he was asked to reshoot the opening scene so that he can have the shower scene, but later on just kept the original take; he even had the nerve and audacity to take something never shown before, due to its controversial status: a flushing toilet! Oh the audacity of such a scene! (But seriously though, why was a flushing toilet never seen on a movie or show until Psycho came out? Am I missing something?) He even told theaters to not let anyone in after the movie starts. For whatever reason, that idea was unheard of, but Hitchcock's demands came, and greatly flourished. Alfred Hitchcock pretty much said "Fuck you" to standards and the norm and decided to keep his vision in tact, with no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Hell, I can't even imagine what it must have been like for audiences in 1960. Having to actually be in their seats on time, witnessing an opening scene of two people as lovers sharing a bed, seeing one of the greatest villains of all time become a legend before their very eyes, and watching a shower scene packed to the brim with symbolism, fear, suspense, and an ultimate payoff, with the scariest violin sounds ever put on film. None of these wonderful moments could have happened if Hitchcock stayed stubborn on his decisions and keeping his creativity and integrity in tact. He knew that thinking and working outside of the box was more important and more impressionable to audiences in both 1960 and 2016, and that's what really makes this horror classic just a little bit more special.

Time to cook up some popcorn.

Confession: I've never seen a Roland Emmerich film.

You do know that kids don't pay for the tickets, right? Mommy and Daddy will have to say yes on going to the theater, and for the most part, it depends on if they think it will be worth their time and worth their wallet. If not, the family isn't gonna go, and they'll wait for Redbox. I'm not going to completely deny your prediction, but just having strong kid appeal won't automatically equal an Inside Out-level opening.

People didn't go see The Nice Guys though.

There's also The Killer.

#17 The Lord of the Rings Directed by Peter Jackson "Fly, you fools!" Box Office: $1.035B Domestic, $2.917B WW Why it's Meaningful to Me: So I'm kinda cheating on this one. I was originally going to put Return of the King on here, because it's my personal favorite, but I feel that the trilogy alone is so strong and powerful for me that only having one would just be unfair. Now my introduction to Peter Jackson's interpretation of Middle-Earth was actually with the first Hobbit movie. My dad was a huge Lord of the Rings fan, but I never really got around to them. But when my dad was excited to go see it, I decided to tag along, since he was paying for it, I loved fantasy, and we were going to be heading to Red Robin later. When I saw it, I loved it, and later on, my dad and I would rewatch the original 2001-2003 trilogy on cable numerous times, and every time, I'm enchanted and enthralled by the story, characters, and universe. Outside of it being something my dad and I easily bond over, these films are a huge part of my love for unique worlds and mythologies. I was already a huge fan of the universes found in Avatar: The Last Airbender, and another fantasy series that will be brought up later, but I feel that very few universes are as layered, as developed, or as unique as Tolkien's, and Jackson is able to successfully capture this unique universe on the screen. It still amazes me how the writers were able to take a trilogy known for its excessive length and massive backstory, and managed to create a simplified, but just as enthralling story, with its characters still wonderfully layered and unique. In all honesty, this is the gold definition on how to make an adaptation right. In fact, not only is this trilogy a perfect adaptation, what made me put these movies together is that Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, in my opinion, is the greatest trilogy of all time. No, I'm not kidding. While other trilogies, even the ones I love, have their movies just be consistently good or one being slightly lesser than the other ones, Jackson was smart enough to make every movie bigger and better than its predecessor. Fellowship established the story and the dangers that will come to its characters. The Two Towers picks up on the first movie, expands on characters like Gollum, intercuts three wonderful stories, and ends on a foreboding note with Gollum seemingly derailing the entire adventure. And the end of it all comes with Return of the King, with some of the best action sequences ever conceived on film, unbelievable visuals, unforgettable character moments, and a perfect end to Frodo and Samwise's wonderful adventure. As both the greatest trilogy ever made, and a soft spot between me and my father, The Lord of the Rings deserved to be here as a package on this list.

Eh, why not? I'll take it!

So while the list was in progress, I was seeing how many of these are available on Netflix, so I can later watch them. I only found four though, but that's fine. I'll state my opinions about these movies some other time.

Oh I forgot about Café Society. That looks like fun too. Don't really care about Trek or Ghostbusters, though.

Y'know I actually realized how this summer, all of the movies I have major interest in are at the end of the season. May only had Civil War, Nice Guys, and Apocalypse, while June had Popstar, Swiss Army Man, and Dory, and early July's just BFG. Then from late July, it's packed. There's Indignation, Jason Bourne, Suicide Squad, The Founder, Pete's Dragon, Sausage Party, and Kubo, and I might be missing one or two. Weird.

I don't really think something being really appealing to kids is enough for a kids movie to be a big hit. I mean, the parents have final say on whether to go to the theater or wait for the DVD, right? If a movie looks too kiddie or too noisy for them, they would probably just say, "No, we're seeing Pixar instead. We'll wait until that other movie comes to Redbox/Netflix." At least that's how my family did things.

I honestly kinda fear what'll happen to Dreamworks with Meledandri in charge. I don't know how much influence he'll have in the creative process, but considering how Illumination's best movie I can really only classify as being "good", I don't really know if DWA's films will have any bump in quality, and when older audiences begin to lose interest in Illumination and likely DWA's schtick, we could go back to Peabody and Sherman numbers.

Oh c'mon, everybody knows DL's projections are wack.

Does it have the Easter Bunny or yellow Tictacs?

Thanks for making me change my Derby at the last minute, B.

This still doesn't make much sense, though. Thanksgiving last year had Creed and Mockingjay Part 2, while Christmas had Star Wars. 2014 had Mockingjay Part 1 for Thanksgiving, and Hobbit and arguably Unbroken for Christmas. Violent films have been released at those times before.

And Django wasn't a violent film?

Ehh, Jamie Lee Curtis is a bit too old for me, but if you say so.

Woah man, don't you dare put Force Awakens in the same camp as BvS and Transformers!

Y'know, I kinda had interest beforehand...now not so much.

The link he posted says it's simultaneously being released in theaters and on Netflix.

@MikeQ

#18 Aladdin Directed by Ron Clements and John Musker "Ten thousand years will give you such a crick in the neck!" Box Office: $217.4M Domestic, $504.1 WW IMDB Summary: When a street urchin vies for the love of a beautiful princess, he uses a genie's magic power to make himself off as a prince in order to marry her. Why it's so Meaningful to Me: Everybody has their own funny bone. What one person finds hilarious, another finds obnoxious or dumb, and vice versa. Often a person's comedy tics can be traced by a certain comedian or a TV show or a movie. For me, one of the most important things that have defined my comedy interests would definitely have to be Aladdin. I grew up not only as a huge Disney fan, but also a Robin Williams fan, so Aladdin was easily one of my favorite movies growing up. The Genie's wisecracking antics and his celebrity impressions that I didn't recognize had me in stitches as a kid, which meant that I would watch it again and again and again. And as the years have gone by, I've noticed a lot of what makes me laugh comes from this movie. A zippy pace with a hundred jokes a minute? Genie in a nutshell. Funny facial expressions and creative visual humor? Throughout the film. Self-referential humor? "Psst. Your line is 'I'm going to free the genie'." Lewis Black-style comedians? Gilbert Gottfried as Iago. From pretty much one movie, my entire understanding of what's funny was defined by this animated musical comedy. Of course, there are plenty of other things that made me come back to it, which also helped define my film interests: Romance, adventure, magic, musical numbers, far-away lands, etc. However, I think what really makes Aladdin so strong to me and possibly others is its humor, and I still consider it one of the funniest movies ever made.