Baumer's 50 most important films of all time (JFK 3, Earthlings 2.....FREE YOUR MIND! THE MATRIX NUMBER 1)

[Daxtreme]

12 minutes ago, Baumer said:

Number 40

They Live (1998)

Roddy Piper, Keith David

Directed by John Carpenter

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum.

 

 

So you were serious when you said odd picks  

[DAR]

12 minutes ago, Baumer said:

Number 40

They Live (1998)

Roddy Piper, Keith David

Directed by John Carpenter

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum.

 

 

Box Office:  13 million

Quick Summary:  A film that is way, way, way ahead of it's time. It dares to tell us something isn't quite right with the universe.

Imdb Summary:  Nada, a down-on-his-luck construction worker, discovers a pair of special sunglasses. Wearing them, he is able to see the world as it really is: people being bombarded by media and government with messages like "Stay Asleep", "No Imagination", "Submit to Authority". Even scarier is that he is able to see that some usually normal-looking people are in fact ugly aliens in charge of the massive campaign to keep humans subdued.

Why it's important:  John Carpenter's slow and deliberate immersion of the daunting and worrying fable of the corrupt, deceiving and indifferent economic, social and political society, that has wrapped itself around its people and who in turn have blindly accepted their fate. Multicultural in more forms than anticipated, are the leading and upwardly mobile alien race who have gelled themselves into the Human psyche and exploited it to its full potential. This is the story of an everyman, a no one, a Nada who stumbles upon their secret, via an underground movement, whose mission is to sabotage their plans and awaken the world to its sinister plans. With the help of a pair of sunglasses, that shows the world as it really is, not in color, but a black and white parallel world that the sub-conscious has chosen to ignore. With subliminal messages as "OBEY", "CONFORM", "MARRY AND REPRODUCE", "CONSUME", "WATCH TELEVISION" and "SLEEP". It is through this thought control that the aliens have this world tied up and neatly packaged for its own manipulative uses, to further themselves at the expense of the meek, mild and the lowly sufferers of a job less and hungry world. This is the battle of self-awareness and one mans struggle with a reality check that has these alien beings staging war against the up-rising and rebellious armies from the gutters and streets. They Live You Sleep; where will your consciousness take you when the sleep is washed from your eyes. Welcome to the real world. It's a film that was dismissed as fluff upon release but has gained an enormous amount of respect in certain circles, especially in the climate we live in today.

Why it's important to me:  Like another film that is bound to make this list, it's a film that is about the human race being asleep.  We are being worn down and forced to live by rules that are unbeknownst to us.  Waking up from this sleep we are all in is tough to do.  This film tries to show and tell us that there's more to our world that meets the eye.  I won't get into too much detail because I'll just end up repeating myself later on.  But I love films that take these kinds of risks.  On a non-political note, this has one of the best hand to hand combat scenes in film history where Roddy Piper actually suplexes Keith David.  It's pretty glorious.

Look at that third tag line "You might even vote for one this fall."   Carpenter's a fucking genius.

[baumer]

Number 39

Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster, Scott Glenn

Directed by Jonathan Demme

"A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

 

 

Box office:  130.7 million

Quick Summary: The first horror movie to have any kind of Oscar clout in perhaps two decades.

Imdb Summary:  Clarice Starling, a young intelligent FBI trainee, has been sent to the Baltimore state hospital for the criminally insane to interview an inmate, Dr. Hannibal "the cannibal" Lecter. A brilliant renowned psychiatrist turned infamous psychopathic serial killer. She must match wits with Lecter - who has the darkest of all minds - and trust him to give her clues in the search for "Buffalo Bill". A nickname for a loose, unknown, unstoppable psychopathic serial killer.

Why it's important:  Allow Roger Ebert to explain:  

The popularity of Jonathan Demme's movie is likely to last as long as there is a market for being scared. Like “Nosferatu,” “Psycho” and “Halloween,” it illustrates that the best thrillers don't age. Fear is a universal emotion and a timeless one. But “Silence of the Lambs” is not merely a thrill show. It is also about two of the most memorable characters in movie history, Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter, and their strange, strained relationship (“people will say we're in love,” Lecter cackles).

They share so much. Both are ostracized by the worlds they want to inhabit--Lecter, by the human race because he is a serial killer and a cannibal, and Clarice, by the law enforcement profession because she is a woman. Both feel powerless--Lecter because he is locked in a maximum security prison (and bound and gagged like King Kong when he is moved), and Clarice because she is surrounded by men who tower over her and fondle her with their eyes. Both use their powers of persuasion to escape from their traps--Lecter is able to rid himself of the pest in the next cell by talking him into choking on his own tongue, and Clarice is able to persuade Lecter to aid her in the search for the serial killer named Buffalo Bill. And both share similar childhood wounds. Lecter is touched when he learns that Clarice lost both her parents at an early age, was shipped off to relatives, was essentially an unloved orphan. And Lecter himself was a victim of child abuse (on the DVD commentary track, Demme says he regrets not underlining this more).

These parallel themes are mirrored by patterns in the visual strategy. Note that both Lecter in his prison cell and Buffalo Bill in his basement are arrived at by Starling after descending several flights of stairs and passing through several doors; they live in underworlds. Note the way the movie always seems to be looking at Clarice: The point-of-view camera takes the place of the scrutinizing men in her life, and when she enters dangerous spaces, it is there waiting for her instead of following her in. Note the consistent use of red, white and blue: not only in the FBI scenes, but also in the flag draped over the car in the storage shed, other flags in Bill's lair and even the graduation cake at the end (where the U.S. eagle in the frosting is a ghastly reminder of the way Lecter pinned a security guard spread-eagled to the walls of his cage).

Why it's important to me:  This is a bit of a strange film for me.  The reason it's so hugely important in my eyes is that ti's the first considered horror film to win best picture.  This, imo, validates so many other horror films that came before it that should of had much more recognition.  Having said that, this is not my favourite film of 1991 (that film will make an appearance on this list later) but because it opened up horror to the mainstream, it's a film I cannot ignore.  I think it has created a legacy not only for itself but for some of the brilliance that came before it in films like Night of the Living Dead, Psycho and Halloween.  Because of this, it deserves a place on this list.

[baumer]

10 minutes ago, Daniel Dylan Davis said:

 

I remember you saying you found it boring and a bit overrated, understandably so, since it's hell of a slow movie. Maybe I was thinking of something else. I'm pleased you at least appreciate it from what it is, anyway.

 

Yes, that is possible.  But I appreciate it much much more now.

[baumer]

4 minutes ago, DAR said:

Look at that third tag line "You might even vote for one this fall."   Carpenter's a fucking genius.

 

They Live is a miracle.  I'm honestly shocked in some ways that it was greenlit.  It's a powder keg of controversy if taken seriously.

[Daxtreme]

5 minutes ago, Baumer said:

Number 40

Silence of the Lambs (1991)

 

 

6 minutes ago, Daxtreme said:

Number 40

They Live (1998)

 

 

[baumer]

Number 38

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman

Directed by Chris Columbus

 

 

Box office:  317.5 million domestic and 974 million WW

Quick summary:  For all intents and purposes, the start of the YA film as we know it today.  No Potter, no Twilight, no Maze Runner and so on.

Imdb summary:  Harry Potter is a young boy with extraordinary magical abilities, after 11 miserable years with his relatives the Dursley's, Harry receives a letter from Hogwarts, not knowing anything about his past, he must come face to face with difficult classes, ghoulish beasts, and an enemy that has tried to murder him since he was born.

Why it's important:  Allow me to just paste my post from July of 2014:    http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/15504-harry-potter-dominated-the-box-office-for-a-decade-there-will-never-be-another-series-like-it/?

 

Harry Potter is not my favourite series of films.  In fact, out of the 8 films, there were maybe 2 I really enjoyed, 2 I really hated and the rest were just kind of ok, not terrible not great, in my opinion of course.  In most other's minds, Potters were like religious experiences.  But opinions aside, the box office speaks for itself.

Staring in 2001 Potter took the world by storm and destroyed the opening weekend record by almost 20 million.  And the most interesting thing about this is that this was based off a book.  When Batman was killing the box office a decade before, it had 50 years of comic book nerds just waiting to run to the box office to see a big screen version of it.  Potter was published 4 years earlier and built up a fanbase in such a short time.  When Philosopher's Stone opened to 90 million, it eclipsed even some of the biggest predictions.  Guru had it opening to 83 million, which already would have been a record, but 90 million was unheard of 13 years ago.

As the years went on, more books were published and the Potter fanbase stayed loyal.  Noctis asked the other day, and this is not verbatim, but he asked, "if you say that all or most 4th films fall from their third, then how do you explain Potter?"

 

It's a good question.  The 4th Potter, Goblet of Fire jumped 50 million domestically and 100 million WW.  My reason for this is simply because the third one dropped because the second was a bit of a let down.  But the fourth benefits from how well liked the third is.  The other thing is that when most recent fourth films drop, like Transformers and Jack Sparrow, they have changed part of their dynamic.  Different characters, different story, different dynamic.  Not Potter.  J.K. Rowling somehow kept the story going for all 7 books.  By the time the fourth one hit the theater, audiences were in love with Potter.  And they really didn't slow down.

The last 4 Potters hit 900 mill+ WW and of course the 8th and final film blew the doors off the midnight record book with 40 million in midnights.  This, imo, is a record that will never be touched.  The new Star Wars has the best chance at it, but I don't think it will come close.  Also, these films came out before the explosion of 3D and before the expanding Asian markets (Potter 8 did 60 million in China and doesn't even have a gross listed for PS in China). If the films had come out maybe even 5 years later, we might be looking at an Avengers type gross for the last one.

 

The biggest reason why imo, Potter will never be duplicated in terms of longevity is because the books remained popular as they came out very close together.  Fans were lined up at midnight to buy a freakin book.  Think about that.  A book caused a feverish panic.  That will probably never happen again.  

 

Now there will be the inevitable comparisons between Potter and other popular franchises.  LOTR, SW and Bond all have high grosses and great longevity.  But here's the thing about Bilbo and Vader.  They took time off in between their first three films and their last three.  Potter didn't.  Potter, for 10 straight years, just kept churning out 900 million dollar films, or close to it, year after year.  Franchises don't do that.  Spiderman drops, Marvel has had to build over the years and didn;t come in hot the way Potter did.  Pirates dropped off domestically and so did the Hobbit.

 

As for Bond, before Skyfall came out and hit a billion, the other films were good sized hits in North America, but not monster ones.  In fact, no Bond film had hit 600 mill WW before Skyfall, so the juxtaposition to Potter is moot.

 

Here are some Potter numbers, truly impressive.

 

Average gross domestically: 298 million

Average gross adjusted:  352 million

Average gross adjusted for 3D (taking out DH2):  376 million

Average gross WW:  965 million

 

Potter is a true anomaly and I'm not sure we'll see something like it again.  This is a series that sustained levels of popularity and box office that we have not seen before in consecutive movies over a 10 year period.  

 

Love it or hate it (I'm closer to hating it than loving it) but from a box office perspective, there is none greater.  I love SW and in a decade from now, if the next three films are just as big as the last three, then we can put it into the conversation, in fact, you could make an entire thread about SW and it's contribution to the box office.  But right now, in 2014, Potter, for longevity to box office ratio, it stands alone.

Why it's important to me:  It's not.  I think the Potter series is a bunch of hooey.  I'll never understand the popularity of them and I think it's a lot of filler.  Potter should have been dead by the third book.  But instead Voldemort, who has to be the worst super villain in the history of villains, waits for 8 stories before he even tries to do anything to Potter and then he is defeated by Potter who is nothing special.  I just don't get it.  

 

 

[cannastop]

Oh wow. Turns out Harry Potter is here after all.

[baumer]

I think the Potter series is a monumental achievement, even if I think the series is a bunch of hooey.

[baumer]

Number 37

Gone With the Wind (1939)

Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh

Directed by Victor Fleming

"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"

 

 

 

Box office:  198.6 million (adjusted, the highest grossing movie domestically of all time)

Quick Summation of importance:  Remembered as the greatest romance ever told, and also for one particular movie line that shocked a nation.

Imdb summary:  The epic tale of a woman's life during one of the most tumultuous periods in America's history. From her young, innocent days on a feudalistic plantation to the war-torn streets of Atlanta; from her first love whom she has always desired to three husbands; from the utmost luxury to absolute starvation and poverty; from her innocence to her understanding and comprehension of life.

Why it's important:  Ever since the time of its release, Gone With the Wind has been considered a classic. Even though it runs at an incredibly length of 224 minutes, Gone With the Wind is never boring, but handsome and distinctive, its iconic score passionately embracing the audience, being completely at one with the film - like all great movie scores are. It's an epic tale of romance, perfectly acted by Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh and Lesley Howard and a progressive leap forward for cinema. When it was released, it was the greatest movie ever made and all these years on, it's still one of them because its story is so strong and pure and a good story transcends time. The vision of the film was something completely new to the medium, taking cinema to an entirely new level as the form was continually evolving as the changes in the last ten years are notable. The film is as monumental in its greatness as it is its importance and will continue to be watched by generations to come.  And as Ebert observes:  Rhett Butler was just the man to get to Scarlett. As he tells her in a key early scene, “You need kissing badly. That's what's wrong with you. You should be kissed, and often, and by someone who knows how.” For “kissed,” substitute the word you're thinking of. Dialogue like that reaches something deep and fundamental in most people; it stirs their fantasies about being brought to sexual pleasure despite themselves. (“Know why women love the horse whisperer?” I was asked by a woman friend not long ago. “They figure, if that's what he can do with a horse, think what he could do with me.”) Scarlett's confusion is between her sentimental fixation on a tepid “Southern gentleman” (Ashley Wilkes) and her unladylike lust for a bold man (Rhett Butler). The most thrilling struggle in “GWTW” is not between North and South, but between Scarlett's lust and her vanity.

Why it's important to me:  Another film that I appreciate more than I like.  It's a fine film and one that I have seen numerous times.  It's never boring and gorgeous to look at.  I'm also fascinated with Fleming, who was able to direct two of the all time classics in one year.  This absolutely is one of the classics.

[Kalo]

1 hour ago, Baumer said:

Number 42

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

Roy Atwell, Stuart Buchanen

Directed by William Cottrell and David Hand and others

 

 

Box Office:  185 million

Quick Synopsis: One of the all time classic Walt Disney films

Imdb summary:  The first, and by far most memorable full-length animated feature from the Disney Studios, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" may have been superseded technically by many of the films that followed it. But its simple story of a charming little princess saved from the evil deeds of her wicked stepmother, the queen, by a group of seven adorable dwarfs made history when it was first released in December, 1937 and has since become an incomparable screen classic.

Why it's important:  With its enduring popularity, the historical importance of Snow White has gotten lost along the way. The first ever feature-length cartoon has always been popular with people of all ages - never losing its significance as the years have passed and technology has improved. There were many reservations before Snow White was released - not even Walt Disney's wife believed it would succeed. Huge box-office takings, seven Oscar's and an incredible legacy later and it's safe to say she was pretty wrong.  Snow White was a pioneering film for the animated medium, being overwhelmingly entertaining and joyous. The unbelievable success of the film meant Disney could follow it up with more feature-length animated films, which he did with Pinocchio. The film, like so many of Disney's is enchanting, heart-warming and engrossing. Snow White's importance goes slightly underrated because it looks as if it were made yesterday and its greatness is so universally accepted.

Why it's important to me:  Animation has never been quite my tempo, at least as an adult.  But when I was younger and my parents introduced me to the wonderful world of Walt Disney, these films were magic to me.  Snow White was one of the first films I remember seeing as a human being.  My love affair with R rated action films didn't start until I was about 10 and my love of horror not for another 2 years after.  Watching Snow White was something me and my family did often.  It wasn't easy to get these films on VHS when we were kids but eventually my parents did get the collection for us.  There was something special about the dwarfs and the wicked queen and poor Snow White.  Animation, imo, was so much better when I was young.  I don't connect for some reason with a lot of the stories today told by Dreamworks and Pixar but Disney always resonated with me.  This is one of the all time classics.

 

 

 

 

 

Snow White is super special to me becuase it reminds me of going to my Grandparents. my parents didn't own this one so I would always watch it with my Grandma. now that she is gone it is a very emotional film for me, I can't think about it without seeing my grandparents living room. 

[baumer]

[Lordmandeep]

GWTW was a decent watch.

 

It reminded me of a very old enjoyable but far to long Bollywood movies 

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, Baumer said:

 

They Live is a miracle.  I'm honestly shocked in some ways that it was greenlit.  It's a powder keg of controversy if taken seriously.

 

I remember hearing about They Live when it was released (I loved it as mentioned in the Conversation thread today, though I can't recall if I saw it when it was released or later on). IIRC, some critics/commentators weren't quite sure what to make of it.  The aliens admittedly were a little... I don't want to say "cheap" since they weren't, but it wasn't a huge special effects movie, even for the time.  Most of the commentary that I do remember was pre-emptive snickering at the presence of Roddy Piper (the then WWF, while massively popular, was seen as extremely low brow by critics and not worthy of "serious" attention, hence the snickering at Piper's presence).  

 

The other thing I do remember is that the critics who "got it", loved it.  But it was just off-kilter enough to avoid too much controversy.  Maybe the release date being literally three days before the US presidential election helped enough people to consider it a stunt and dismiss it.  Really have to go back to some of the newspapers/magazines of the time to be sure.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Porthos

[Dementeleus]

It was also back in the day where there were more distribution companies, so if you kept the budgets low, controversial content didn't matter so much. One of the bigger studios would've never touched the project, even back then, but for a smaller company it would've been an easy decision. 

[The Futurist]

1 hour ago, Telemachos said:

Didn't SNOW WHITE basically save Disney from bankruptcy? Or am I thinking of SLEEPING BEAUTY?

 

I ve seen a very detailed biography of Uncle Walt recently and the thing is that he clearly jeopardized the future of the company on the success or not of Snow White.

 

If Snow White had failed, his company would have been in serious financial troubles

[Lordmandeep]

5 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

I ve seen a very detailed biography of Uncle Walt recently and the thing is that he clearly jeopardized the future of the company on the success or not of Snow White.

 

If Snow White had failed, his company would have been in serious financial troubles

 

 

No MCU and No SW

 

James is pissed... 

[Porthos]

20 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

It was also back in the day where there were more distribution companies, so if you kept the budgets low, controversial content didn't matter so much. One of the bigger studios would've never touched the project, even back then, but for a smaller company it would've been an easy decision. 

 

As I check, I see it was distributed by Universal, but that's 'just' distribution.  It was produced by Larry  Franco's production company.  Who also produced most of Carpenter's films, from what I can see, according to Wikipedia.  Still, even the largest movies weren't sent to nearly as many theaters back then as they are now, so perhaps a difference that makes no difference.

 

And this leads me into another memory that I'm not entierly sure of.  While Carpenter had accalim from The Thing and Starman, he had a (is it fair to call it a box office bomb?  Probably) box office bomb with Big Trouble in Little China. It's probably not too surprising that his next two films (Prince of Darkness and They Live) both have production budgets listed at 3 million dollars (about 6 million in 2016 dollars adjusted for inflation).  

 

From what I recall many critics dismissed They Live simply because it was a no-budget flick from a director who 'obviously'* was past his prime.

 

* Sarcasm.  Naturally. 

 

Could be misremembering, of course.  But I think I faintly recall the dismissive attitude toward Carpenter at the time.  That certainly helped with the overlooking of They Live.

 

edited

 

As I check, I see now (and I should have remembered this) that the feeling was entierly mutual on Carpenter's side at the time, as the box office failure of BTiLC convinced him to go back to independent film making.  So the mutual antipathy probably didn't help They Live's chances.

 

So a variety of factors that led to a movie not NEARLY getting the recognition it should have.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Porthos

[baumer]

19 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

It was also back in the day where there were more distribution companies, so if you kept the budgets low, controversial content didn't matter so much. One of the bigger studios would've never touched the project, even back then, but for a smaller company it would've been an easy decision. 

 

Fascinating......I never thought of it that way.  

[Dementeleus]

11 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

As I check, I see it was distributed by Universal, but that's 'just' distribution.  It was produced by Larry  Franco's production company.  Who also produced most of Carpenter's films, from what I can see, according to Wikipedia.  Still, even the largest movies weren't sent to nearly as many theaters back then as they are now, so perhaps a difference that makes no difference.

 

And this leads me into another memory that I'm not entierly sure of.  While Carpenter had accalim from The Thing and Starman, he had a (is it fair to call it a box office bomb?  Probably) box office bomb with Big Trouble in Little China. It's probably not too surprising that his next two films (Prince of Darkness and They Live) both have production budgets listed at 3 million dollars (about 6 million in 2016 dollars adjusted for inflation).  

 

From what I recall many critics dismissed They Live simply because it was a no-budget flick from a director who 'obviously'* was past his prime.

 

* Sarcasm.  Naturally. 

 

Could be misremembering, of course.  But I think I faintly recall the dismissive attitude toward Carpenter at the time.  That certainly helped with the overlooking of They Live.

 

edited

 

As I check, I see now (and I should have remembered this) that the feeling was entierly mutual on Carpenter's side at the time, as the box office failure of BTiLC convinced him to go back to independent film making.  So the mutual antipathy probably didn't help They Live's chances.

 

So a variety of factors that led to a movie not NEARLY getting the recognition it should have.

 

I think Carpenter's frustration started all the way back with THE THING (I think it's fair to call it a bomb, unfortunately. STARMAN did make $28m and wasn't terribly expensive to make).