Important Pop Culture

My 75 Favorite Songs of the 80's - Part 1: 75-61

2016-04-06T13:08:00.000-07:00

Foreward.
I had planned on writing a "favorites" list again and decided to start here. I will release this in parts of 15 over time. I apologize in advance if the embedded videos do not play in the article for you, but some of these videos (most of these videos), despite being from almost all legit channels, are blocked from being viewed outside of YouTube because of the site's Draconian policies. If you follow the link in the error message, it should open the video in a new tab for you.

I hope you enjoy...

75- “If You Leave” - Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark (1986)

Album: Architecture & Mortality & More

Writers: Martin Cooper (OMD and The Listening Pool), Paul Humphreys and Andy McCluskey

John Hughes was a voice of the 80’s and his movies touched millions. So, naturally, a song

From the soundtrack of one of his hit movies would become a hit itself. If You Leave is OMD’s

Most successful single in the US, due largely to its exposure in Hughes’ 1986 classic Pretty In Pink.

While the whole of the song is filled with tonally-soft vocal melodies, what makes this song stand out is its striking synth riff that is its most recognizable feature. It adds a bright sound that makes it fit more along with the pop acts of the early 80’s as opposed to the more dramatic, minor key sounds of its time.

74- “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go” - Wham! (1984)

Album: Make It Big

Writer: George Michael

Speaking of ‘bright and cheery’, next up is Wham!’s chart-topping hit Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go. The song makes my list solely because of George Michael’s vocals. His high notes mixed with the song’s tone lift this one up more than it would have otherwise been as this sort of bubbly, overly-cheerful pop music is usually a turn-off for me. Still, I can’t help but smile when I hear this song.

73- “Turn It On Again” - Genesis (1980)

Album: Duke

Writers: Tony Banks, Phil Collins, Mike Rutherford

Genesis is one of the all-time essential bands. They are among the most successful rock acts of all time, and were utterly ubiquitous in the 80’s. As inescapable as they were and still are today, it’s easy to forget that it took former frontman Peter Gabriel’s departure, and drummer Phil Collins’ move to lead singer to really bring this band to the forefront of modern pop/rock, where they rest as one of the most successful acts in the genre’s history.

Turn it On Again is one of the singles that defined Genesis’ distinct sound. While they are widely known for songs such as In Too Deep and Invisible Touch, their B-Sides and unreleased tracks really expressed the range of the band’s musical complexity. It is here that they really show off their upbeat, lyric-heavy style meshed with unconventional rhythm and time signatures. It’s now a classic icon of their live shows, so much so that it became the official name the band’s reunion tour in 2007. It’s one of a number of songs of theirs that were never given an official single release, but still carry on their legacy today, another will show up later in this list…

72- “Whip It” - Devo (1980)

Album: Freedom of Choice

Writers: Gerald Casale, Mark Mothersbaugh

In an effort to shake the negative stigma of late-70’s pop and disco, New Wave artists worked hard to distinguish themselves with a fresh style that removed them from the sound that tried to linger in the wake of the 70’s. New Wave had been growing for a few years leading up to this point, but it was just starting to make waves in the very late 70’s. During this time, a lot of bands flooded the scene with a very different sound. Some were successful, many were not, but the novelty of the time drove the genre, which is why so many of the biggest hits were a little… odd.

Whip It featured all of the iconic elements of popular New Wave in its time while maintaining a certain level of integrity, lacking the over-the-top, attention grabbing evident in many of Devo’s contemporaries. It featured the aggressive synth, the vocals lacking sustained notes, the short-but-sweet composition… All of the characteristics of New Wave at the time, but feels much more mature and mathematical than most of the hits it shared the charts with.

71- “There Is A Light That Never Goes Out” - The Smiths (1986)

Album: The Queen Is Dead

Writers: Johnny Marr, Morrissey

As the 80’s came around and mainstream New Wave dominated the scene, indie rock acts were making the rounds in the background. The Smiths had a few things going for them early on. They had crossover appeal, they were unique and they had a moody tone that really lifted their music up beyond being typical pop-rock. This is where the Alternative subgenre comes into play.

Alternative has a few definitions in industry terms, but what it typically boils down to is a general pool of artists who have some rock, blues and pop influences that aren’t “poppy” enough for the pop mainstream or “rockin’” enough for the rock charts. This is reserved for your Collective Souls; your Counting Crows; basically, any group that sort of treads the lines of rock with many of songs, or at the very least, their singles.

The Smiths have this unique ability to draw you into the mind of songwriter and frontman Morrissey. The deeply personal, tonally-odd lyrics of many of their better songs were a real contrast to the upbeat, saccharin, hot-pink pop of the period. There Is A Light That Never Goes Out is told from a perspective of a person who feels isolated alone at home. Implications are that other people there cause this feeling, but he feels freer with the one he’s with. This feeling is so strong he would be satisfied with dying that night with the driver rather than staying at home. It’s a powerful statement, and one that has turned this into one of the most beloved songs of its time.

That said, it did not chart in the US. It failed the test of NA popularity against other acts of the time, as the tastes in the UK rock scene clashed heavily from what was consumed Stateside. Over the years, as more and more popular artists cited The Smiths as a strong influence, they garnered more attention and are now rightfully recognized as the titans of creativity they are so well known to be in their home country.

70- “I Ran” - A Flock of Seagulls (1982)

Album: A Flock of Seagulls

Writers: A Flock of Seagulls

Going from underground rock acts to the massive mainstream, we have “I Ran”, a song that hovered just inside the Billboard Hot 100’s Top Ten spot in 1982. After its run on the charts as a hit MTV tune, it become a contender for one of the most definitive songs of the decade, and for good reason.

Comparing A Flock of Seagulls’ biggest North American hit to other songs of its day, it seems to fit right in. It had the upbeat pace, the synth, the simple lyrics, the immediate-recognizable intro… all of it. It was just the right single to land this act in the annals of pop history, and remains their biggest hit. Aside from the success of the song, A Flock of Seagulls also exemplified the look of the 80’s. Foregoing the pretty boy look of the 70’s, they become known for their outlandish hairstyles. This was also increased as MTV made the look of the artist more accessible in the 80’s to anyone with cable.

Their style of sound were mimicked for the better part of the decade after this hit landed them into stardom, but they would begin to peter out in the U.S. as music tastes began to evolve but continued with a string of successful hits throughout the 80’s internationally. The band dissolved after the falling out of brothers and founding members Mike and Ali Score.

69- “Hold Me Now” - Thompson Twins (1984)

Writers: Tom Bailey (Thompson Twins), Alannah Currie and Joe Leeway

Album: Into the Gap

I find it hard to define specifically WHY I like Hold Me Now. It’s repetitive, the chorus is slow, it’s way too long for what it is, yet for some reason the mix of melody and the interesting percussion make this one stand out. It is Thompson Twins’ biggest-selling single and rests as one of the most well-known 80’s hits.

I don’t really know what more to say about this one. It’s certainly a simple song that’s easy to sing along with. This is a good thing for a pop song, which is designed to get stuck in your head and to be memorable. No one pop song is ever released with the intention of becoming a timeless classic. It just sort of happens. Hence, that indefinable quality.

68- “All I Need Is A Miracle” - Mike + The Mechanics (1985)

Writers: Mike Rutherford, Christopher Neil

Album: Mike + the Mechanics

In the 80’s, Genesis was unstoppable. They would continue a string of hits through the years, but as the band grew in success, other acts were operating on the side. This includes solo and collaborative performances from frontman Phil Collins, and guitarist Mike Rutherford starting his own band, Mike + the Mechanics.

In the US, the band is mostly known for the single All I Need Is a Miracle, an upbeat and memorable pop tune. It has a fair share of schmaltz slathered on top, but that does not detract from the fact that this is a legitimately-enjoyable tune. It is certainly the sort of single that could only have become popular in the mid-80’s, but it still manages to capture elements of a greater sound that would become big in its time.

67- “Big Time” - Peter Gabriel (1986)

Album: So

Writers: Peter Gabriel

As Peter Gabriel’s 2nd hit single after his split from Genesis, Big Time helped to introduce his larger-than-life sound after his previous hit Sledgehammer. It was a common theme of the 80’s to talk about rising up to success and making it “big”. This was due to the mostly-up economy and the general attitude of flash and decadence of the period. The song is one of the best of its kind, with a catchy, singable pop chorus and an awesome animated music video in the tradition of Sledgehammer.

The song’s host album “So” is one of my favorite albums of the decade, and in terms of style, it’s also one of the most diverse. I can promise you will see more from this album on the list in the future as it truly is one of the 80’s great music masterpieces. If you have not heard it, I suggest giving it a full listen.

66- “Land of Confusion” - Genesis (1986)

Album: “Invisible Touch”

Writers: Mike Rutherford, Tony Banks, Phil Collins

Invisible Touch is an amazing album and Land of Confusion is one of its best singles. The hard-hitting sound makes it stand out from the album. The composition definitely has a lot of power to it, and the intensity of Collins’ vocals only helps to accentuate the tone of the lyrics. This “The World Is Just So Messed Up” theme that so many hit songs of the era shared adds to the emotional tone of the song, and in an era saturated by bad “Save the World” songs, this one is a breath of fresh air.

Aside from the sheer quality of the song, the music video has stuck with people over the years. The puppeteering is definitely creepy and bizarre. The imagery is both funny and dark and it contrasts strangely with the tone of the song, but I think that works in its favor. It gives it staying power.

65- “Drive” - The Cars (1984)

Album: Heartbeat City

Writer: Ric Ocasek

The Cars are largely known for their driving, upbeat pop rock tunes, but Drive is actually their biggest overall hit. As part of the excellent album Heartbeat City, it serves as a moody, melancholy break from an otherwise energetic tracklist. The song is incredibly simple, smooth and it doesn’t build to much intensity, but the warmth of the lyrics are its strength.

Common opinion states the song is about a man who is speaking to a friend (likely a female) who is struggling or suffering from something in their life, and how he is reaching out to let him help. It’s a plea for change and intervention. Sung by bassist Ben Orr, the song has a much more serious tone than The Cars’ other singles of the 80’s.

64- “Burning Down the House” - Talking Heads (1983)

Album: Speaking In Tongues

Writers: David Byrne, Chris Frantz, Jerry Harrison, Tina Weymouth

One of my favorite artists of all time are Talking Heads. They have such a great, unique sound and what I like most is how they are willing to experiment and try different musical ideas and styles. Burning Down the House is the brainchild of drummer Chris Frantz and bassist Tina Weymouth, who were “jamming” after a Parliament-Funkadelic concert. David Byrne then wrote the lyrics by spouting out random lines then picking the ones that “worked together”.

Of all of Talking Heads’ singles, Burning Down The House remains their most successful, peaking just inside the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100 back in 1983. It is easily among their most accessible songs. There’s nothing too eclectic that would drive away more casual listeners, and the funk-inspired groove made it a popular dance tune. It also performed well on the rock charts, granting Talking Heads even more underground credibility, which cemented the early 1980’s as the height of the band’s storied career.

63- “About A Girl” - Nirvana (1989)

Album: Bleach

Writer: Kurt Cobain

That’s right! A Nirvana song on my 80’s music list! I went there! About A Girl is an odd little Beatles-inspired tune from the iconic band’s 1989 debut album “Bleach”. The song was reportedly written by Cobain about his then-girlfriend. It was a reflection of their complicated relationship. Cobain kept the inspiration for About A Girl a secret that would not come to light until after his death.

About A Girl is a very simple song, using a verse-chorus structure that is very common in the grunge scene, with bands often simplifying their music; a staple of grunge’s rival genre: punk. If you listen to most rock of the late-80’s, then listen to About A Girl, it is easy to see why Nirvana had so much promise in terms of guiding rock music into a new era.

62- “Don’t You Want Me” - The Human League (1981)

Album: Dare
Writers: Jo Callis, Philip Oakey, Philip Adrian Wright

Through the history of popular music, there are many examples of hit songs hated by their artists. Don’t You Want Me is the most successful single from synth-pop act The Human League, who had three previously-popular singles leading up to this point. The story of Don’t You Want Me involved frontman Philip Oakey and producer Martin Rushent butting heads over the song, which Oakey despised. He felt it was too poppy and too far-removed from their known sound at the time, demanding it be relegated to a B-side and shoved at the end of the album. Little did he know then that not only would it be successful, but it would become one of the biggest pop songs of the decade.

The song tells the story of a relationship as told from both the point-of-view of the male and the female. The dynamic of the song is enhanced by this dual perspective and the two vocal styles work well together. I think, even over this interesting songwriting idea being done well here, this is just a catchy, accessible song. It’s stuck with me for years as a song that is distinctly 80’s, while also sounding a little ahead of its time for 1981.

61- “Love Bites” - Def Leppard (1988)

Album: Hysteria

Writers: Joe Elliott, Phil Collen, Steve Clark, Rick Savage, Robert John Lange

Def Leppard, one of the definitive rock acts of the 80’s, had only one number one single in the Billboard Hot 100. That single was Love Bites. “Hysteria” was a different direction from Def Leppard’s Pyromania, which had a harder edge to it. Instead of grit, Def Leppard added emotional depth with their song writing and while they still have some of that desireable rock styling in the album (audible in tracks like Woman and Don’t Shoot Shotgun), “Hysteria” certainly feels like the band’s “grown up” album.

Love Bites definitely sounds like it comes from the perspective of a person who struggles with holding things together with his lover. He feels the drive to maintain a physical relationship with a woman who is obviously cheating, but struggles with his own desire. It’s a common trope in this sort of “cheating girl” ballads. The song’s slower tempo allows it to build to a massive, harmonious chorus, with the background vocals picking up the intensity. I feel Love Bites shows off the band’s vocal talents more than just about any of their other tracks.

2016 Update

2016-03-23T05:31:00.000-07:00

I have a tendency to stop posting on and off. There really is no particular reason outside of laziness and other things going on that make it difficult. I will try to get back into regular updates here starting with some reviews. I will keep people updated on Twitter as well as Facebook in the meantime. Thanks for sticking with me while I get myself back into the swing of things.

Thanks.

The Avengers: Age of Ultron Review (2015) - SPOILERS!!!

2015-04-30T22:25:00.000-07:00

WARNING!
AS STATED IN THE TITLE THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW!!!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015;
Marvel Studios)

Going into the Avengers: Age of Ultron I had high hopes. I think everyone did. I made a point to not check out information on the movie. I stayed away from online sources containing anything about the film and its cast and went in entirely objectively and unspoiled. I begin the movie wanting to know two things: How did they pull of the Ultron storyline and how badass was Scarlet Witch? I essentially satisfied in both respects. That does not, however, mean Age of Ultron is a perfect movie.

The problem with making a sequel to a movie as big as the Avengers is it will be very hard to top it. Initially, I was unsure about what they were going to do, but by the beginning of the third act, I was pretty certain I had guessed at exactly what was going to unfold by the film’s conclusion with around 60% accuracy. The movie steps things up by having the swarms of enemies that were certainly meant to be more menacing than the Chitauri, and is successful in that… kind of. Early in the movie, a struggle breaks out with a group of Stark’s automaton sentries that come off as would-be cannon fodder but there is a sense of menace with the team battling just a handful of Stark’s creations. However, by the end we see the Avengers decimating hundreds of them with little-to-no effort. Did they discover their weak points?

This is a recurring problem in Age of Ultron, too. Action scenes are built up and are, for the most part, concluded and only briefly addressed until we get to the end and the lead characters find themselves facing off against Ultron’s hoards in the climactic battle. However, each scene that has a strong start is often cut into with momentary lapses in tension. A key character is killed and we get a few moments of sadness, followed by more explosions, then he’s never really addressed again. A major event will occur, and will be negated or disregarded almost as quickly as it began. This goes most notably for the film’s anti-climax. It ends exactly how you expect it would by the start of the third act and it just sort of peters out. It literally ends with a bang but hits like a shot from a Nerf gun, really. Honestly, it feels like a step down from the New York set piece in the first movie. This isn’t helped by the fact that it uses one of the most cliched and most often-horribly done evil-plan cliches and does it well, but only as well as this goofy, overused premise can be done.

Other major problems occur in the characters. The first Avengers had a small team of characters and we are able to get a lot of characterization in their interactions. However, Age of Ultron goes the sequel route of adding so many characters (nearly doubling the size of the team by the end of the movie) that most of their little moments end up lost in the shuffle. I appreciate the attempts to flesh out some of the more overshadowed characters from the first movie (like Hawkeye, for instance) but this is still the Robert Downey, Jr. Show. I do not blame Whedon for this, though. RDJ’s magnetism is on full display, driving up the arrogance and intellectualism of Tony Stark much more than the first movie. He’s still a wise-ass, but he comes off as more of the brilliant character he is in this outing. Yet, the problem with having such a big cast and only a few characters dominating the foreground is you have a lot of questions, and a lot of characters that really just feel pointless. Quicksilver suffers this in many respects, as he is mostly just relegated to “clean-up duty” while his much more prominent sister, Scarlet Witch is elevated to full-on goddess (even though, in-canon she is significantly more-powerful than almost all of the other Avengers). She gets her big moment. Quicksilver doesn’t. Don Cheadle makes his appearance as War Machine which is welcome, but he is also given next to nothing to do, and just feels like a pointless addition in the end.

Now, with all of the negatives aside, this is still a good movie. It isn’t complex. It will not wreck your brain-area with convoluted exposition and over-blown pseudoscience. It gives you just enough to lay the foundation for some truly well-done action scenes. Like in the first film, Joss Whedon lines up wonderful moments of kineticism with smart, interspersed, and occasionally funny dialogue. Sure, some of the action scenes go on a little long, but they never drift into Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich-Level CGI Porn. Instead, each scene is clearly-lit, everything is vivid and easily discernable (with a few brief exceptions) and the layout of each scene is solid. Whedon also employs his trademark single, long tracking shots that flow to each character nearly-seamlessly multiple times and it’s always a welcome technique, never coming off as exploited or poorly done here.

Acting is good all-around. The only truly weak performance comes from Linda Cardellini, who I liked in ER and loved in Freaks and Geeks, but here, she just plays Worried Pregnant Housewife #2. Despite having a direct association with one of the MAIN characters, she’s wasted. We cut back to the occasional worried-wife-shot then back to the action. The editing in that one cut to her is awkward, too. It just felt… off. That said, James Spader was immensely entertaining as the ultimate super-intelligence, Ultron, though his reasoning does fall squarely into Final Fantasy villain territory. Aside from that, there really was no reason to have a big supporting cast. This is the Avengers’ show and do you know what? That’s okay. That is exactly what we all went to see, and Joss Whedon seems to recognize that. He didn’t flood the movie with too many pointless subplots (there are a few, but they aren’t too awfully intrusive) and, thanking all that is holy, no obnoxious comic relief characters that are so endemic in action movies these days.

Now I’m going to touch on Ultron a little more as a villain here. As I said, James Spader is awesome and I do not think I’ve ever disliked a performance from him. Even when he’s in a bad movie, Spader still busts his butt to craft a memorable character for the audience. His inflections work very well in the role as his subtle, personal touches on Ultron’s voice gives the entity life. Lesser writers would have just made it a cold super-T-800-style-villain-bot. However, Whedon knows how to write characters and its dialogue, mixed with Spader’s performance makes a nice blend. That said, in all of his efforts, I think Whedon failed to really build Ultron up to be the force it really is. Ultron’s a powerful dude here, for sure. Is it menacing? Yes. Yet, by the end of the movie, one of the most powerful figures in comic book lore is dispatched in an anti-climax that has it fade away quicker than it appeared. With the rest of the action scenes in this movie lasting in the 10-20 minute range, the fact that the final showdown that leads to the villain’s end lasts only about two minutes in total was just a big letdown. Note that I’m only referring to the machine Ultron built for himself, disregarding his consciousness in the rest of the sentry bots because… well, so does the movie. This was all an obvious hint at Ultron’s return. Which, it seems, will certainly happen.

My final thought is as a big, loud, packed action movie. This one is a lot of fun. It’s accessible, there’s nothing in it that’s too disturbing for younger audiences, nor does it feel like a cartoon. It is a well-balanced movie overall. I would say it’s probably the lesser of Whedon’s most recent film projects factoring in the first Avengers movie AND Cabin in the Woods (which he co-wrote), but it’s not obnoxious outside of being about thirty minutes too long, and it has enough fun action moments and entertaining dialogue that I would give a whole-hearted recommendation. It won’t be topping any “greatest action movies” lists, but it’s definitely better than most of what we get from Hollywood these days. Given the chance, I’d see this again. It’s a balanced movie and though I feel Joss Whedon is a much, MUCH better character writer than he is an action film director, I respect his choice to make an accessible movie that cuts the fat and delivers exactly what fans want. The Avengers: Age of Ultron a pretty fun movie.

Animation Therapy - Turbo Teen (1984)

2015-04-19T10:33:00.000-07:00

Turbo Teen (1984; ABC Network)

Sometimes there’s a show that is both very easy to describe yet impossible to explain to someone who hasn’t seen it. That said, I cannot fathom a scenario where the people behind Turbo Teen weren’t met with either uproarious mocking laughter, or an irritated slap to the face. A lot of the shows I really got into were from the late 80’s, so this was just shy of that period for me, and it was too big of a failure to really maintain any post-run momentum in syndication or home video that I recall. Now, even as a kid I was very picky and didn’t like a lot of the shows my friends did either because of the way the characters looked, or because of the show’s pacing or tone (not that I really understood what that meant back then, but it’s a quality that is often recognized without definition). So, I guess even then I was sort of a jerk when it comes to entertainment (wink). That begs the question: Do I regret watching an episode now? Nope! Because this is one of the greatest things I’ve ever seen in my life!

The awesomely stupid premise for Turbo Teen is as follows: Brett Matthews is a teen driving home from work in his sports car when a tree is struck by lightning, forcing him to swerve and sending him flying off the road, over a cliff and into the side of a secret lab where he crashes right into the path of a ray that merges the molecules of Brett’s body with those of the machine’s, giving the teen the power to transform into his car. When exposed to heat (hot water, food, ect.) Brett uncontrollably takes the form of his car where cold then turns him back (Where have I heard a similar premise before..?) Together with his friends Patti and Alex (who have skills of their own) and Comic-Relief-Dog, Brett goes on crime-fighting adventures against powerful enemies. Yes! This exists!!! I am SO happy about this!

In the 80’s there was no absence of bad animated series. Really, the quality spike didn’t peak until the late 80’s when Disney Animation Studios started hitting their stride and series like Transformers and G.I. Joe reached their pinnacle. Things will stay good for a while until the airwaves became flooded with bad knockoffs and celebrity-themed animated shows like Wishkid (THAT damn show’s day is coming…). Before that, there is this strange dead zone filled with bland animated tripe from Hanna-Barbera Productions (who were already starting to fade in quality by that point) and a few other companies like Dic, for instance. Turbo Teen lands somewhere in-between debuting in 1984 and lasting just one season. It never really gained an audience, probably because it is such a ludicrous premise that a kid may find it more stupid than anything. It takes a few years (or decades) for a show like this to re-emerge and become a sort of cult favorite. I think, from what I’ve seen, Turbo Teen is ripe for that sort of cult rebirth.

Now, as out-there as the show’s premise is, knowing the episode I saw as a jumping-off point will make things even more enticing. The episode is entitled “Video Venger” and opens on the teens playing an arcade game but when Brett has a piece of pizza land on his face he transforms into his car right there in the Pizza parlor while playing the game. Still wanting to beat Alex’s highscore, Brett has his friend plug him into the arcade cabinet via a universal cable in his dashboard so he can control the game as a car. This causes a military insurgent group monitoring the game to unleash an army of robots onto the city resembling enemies from the game and only the Turbo Teen and his friends can save the day. This episode ends with the group saving the President by having two ice-firing tanks crossfire into each other through some Turbo-Teen-Trickery right in the White House… driveway..? Ultimately the President awards them with medals.

Okay, so if I missed anything it could be that while watching this I was mesmerized by its existence and was also somewhat distracted with bouts of hysterical laughter. There is so much stupid in that last paragraph that I can understand you wondering why I would recommend this to anyone. All I will say is, if you’re a fan of over-the-top, so-bad-it’s-good entertainment, and are just in awe by really, really awesomely bad TV in-general, you will probably love this show. If you go in with the right attitude, you may be surprised by how much enjoyment you get out of it. I went in expecting it to be one of the worst shows of the decade by reputation. It isn’t. The worst animation from the 80’s-90’s is either boring, a cheap cash-in, or is MEANT to be funny but isn’t. This is none of those things. It’s too insane to be boring, there really isn’t much like it (unless you pick out parts from about six different shows), and it isn’t really meant to be a comedy. It’s an action show. Sure there are gags in it but for the most part it was played straight. I love so-bad-it’s-good stuff and this is up there for me. I enjoyed the Hell out of Turbo Teen!

Watch Turbo Teen: Video Venger in Cartoon | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Generation Wars: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) vs. TMNT (2007)

2015-04-14T14:42:00.000-07:00

Now, I know I’m not the first person to do this, but I would like to see how many of these classic series have evolved over the years and I decided to start this series with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Originally based on Mirage Comic’s violent cult series of the same name (created by the duo of Laird and Eastman), the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles made their mainstream debut in the late 80’s. Now, it’s important to note that this was a time where a lot of major companies were seeing great success with animated series based on toy tie-ins. The two biggest ones before TMNT were G.I. Joe and Transformers. These two series drew huge fans to the stores to buy every toy for everything they saw on the 30 minute TV series. The fact was, these shows really didn’t have much in terms of plot. They were really just toy advertisements. The same goes for a lot of hit series from the time, including The Real Ghostbusters and Thundercats. Then came 1987…

‘87 was a bad, BAAAAD year for movies, but on TV, things were changing. Some of the biggest shows ever made their debuts in this year. Three notable entries were Star Trek: The Next Generation, Duck Tales and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The latter of the two did something very different. Unlike a lot of their tie-in contemporaries, these two animated series attempted to craft short stories around existing characters with established relationships and arcs. They weren’t Shakespeare, but they were smart, funny and entertaining. These two shows were essentially responsible for the huge boom of Saturday Morning animation in the late-80’s and early 90’s, a genre that was starting to fade a little at the time.

Fast forward to 1990. A series as big as Ninja Turtles was not going to escape the Hollywood treatment, and on March 30th, fans of the series were treated to a hard-edge, energetic, fun and somewhat edgy action flick. This was NOT a kids movie, in spite of its rating. It had pacing, action, and the characters that were mostly known by everyone at that point were treated well in terms of their nature and relationships. It must be said, that if you did not grow up in this period, you likely have no idea just how massive this series was. Compare it to anything big today, and you may be close, but just short. TMNT was a phenomenon, and it was everywhere. So much so that it never actually went away. The series lasted well into the 90’s, running for nearly a decade (that was HUGE for an animated series), and other animated shows, comics, games, movies (to a lesser extent) and other spin-offs continued to come out. Still, the question is, does the 90’s movie hold up?

Well, not too long before writing this article I went back and watched it and was astonished by how good it still is. No, seriously. The action was good, the characters were spot on, they stayed true to the overall story and, thanks to help from Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, the Turtles themselves were amazing. The movie hit the nail on the head, transporting the Turtles out of the realm of 2D and bringing them to life. Naturally the movie was a big hit. The sequels… not so good, though. They didn’t hold up and tried too hard to be more kid-friendly, ultimately losing some of the momentum the first film built. This was partially in-response to some backlash that the first film was “for kids” but was too violent and dark for a few parents to handle… Boy how times have changed.

As a sort of hiatus, the Turtles went back to the shadows and remained out of the mainstream for a short time until being revitalized in a new 2007 animated film. TMNT debuted to mixed reviews. It sits at a 37% on Rotten Tomatoes and was generally panned by critics. Two things are wrong with this picture. First, having watched the movie, it was not a bad film; not by any means. It was certainly better than a 37%. I have SEEN what a 37% looks like and it’s a Hell of a lot worse than this. No, I think there was some backlash to the tone in some cases. First, the new movie addresses some of the things that were just glossed over in the original film and series more directly, in-particularly, April O’Neil’s restlessness and Raphael’s rebelliousness. The latter is a prominent plot point early in the movie as it is an established and ongoing trait of the character. No complaints there.

Another point of contention is the 2007 film’s plot. The story revolves around an ancient immortal warrior who is able to resurrect his ancient generals when the stars align, and with the moment right, he can open a portal to conjure up monsters and take over the world. It’s like something out of a Final Fantasy game, and it’s goofy, but it’s not the worst I’ve seen from that type of story. The other subplots involve a barely glossed-over relationship between fellow-vigilante Casey Jones and April O’Neil and the returning theme of Raphael’s lone crime fighting ways. What I liked about TMNT is how it addressed the latter. Leonardo, who returns from a prolonged absence of self reflection, finds his family in disarray and is faced with bridging a severed relationship with Raph. It turns out, another armored vigilante hero has been taking out thugs around New York and Leo, in an attempt to stop him, finds that this so-named Nightwatcher is actually Raphael. This leads to the two brothers having a nearly-fatal brawl on the rooftop. As a long-time fan of these characters, THIS was satisfying to me. It was the obvious and inevitable result of their rough relationship and at that point I was sold.

As a standalone movie, TMNT is not a masterpiece, but it does what it set out to do: Make a fun and solid TMNT adventure. The only real complaints I have about the movie is it has that odd, jagged CGI animation a lot of series do today, that has these 3D characters with Disney eyes that looks sort of odd in the high-detail world around them, and a few of the “chase” scenes are a little overlong and are basically just filler. These long action scenes make the few more meaningful ones seem longer than necessary by association. Lastly, the plot is nothing fresh or astonishing, but it sets the stage for some cool character design for the villains, and a few pretty solid fights.

Really, I do not see why this has such bad reviews. It is NOT a bad movie. It’s faithful, it was obviously made by people with a lot of love for the source material, it has a lot of quality animation (especially in the case of the Turtles) and the attention to detail in the production design is great. I also like that they didn’t go overboard with references to the old series. Sure they’re eating pizza, Splinter is watching soap operas and Casey Jones is donning his trademark hockey mask, but it isn’t abused and shoved in our faces like a lot of throwback remakes and reboots tend to try to do. It’s respectful is what I’m saying.

So, which one is better. Well, in this case it really isn’t a contest. The 1990 film was engaging and had warmth as well as tension. There is just something about seeing these characters in the “real world” that brings them to life. Also, practical effects always look better than CGI and while at least the 2007 movie is entirely animated, the tangible Turtles from the earlier film are much more believable. For anyone who didn’t grow up during Turtlemania, I would say watch the original movie. It is not too dissimilar but definitely feels more real and, on the whole, is a much better movie.

"Know" More Culture - The Way ‘The Day the Clown Cried’ Died

2015-03-18T23:33:00.000-07:00

Jerry Lewis in 'The Day the Clown Cried' (1972;
src: notrecinema.com)

It was the 1970’s. One-time A-lister Jerry Lewis was working in various capacities in Hollywood but really wanted to leave his mark, and the tone and style of film was changing rapidly, more or less leaving him behind. Screenwriters Joan O’Brien and Charles Denton finished their script for the Day the Clown Cried and Lewis was approached to play the lead. He was apprehensive to say the least. Mostly known for screwball humor, Lewis feared he just wasn’t the right person for this sort of role. Yet, ultimately, he came to the conclusion that it is an opportunity to star in something truly meaningful, and took up the reins as the lead character, the doomed clown named “Karl Schmidt”.

The film’s story is pretty straightforward. Set during the start of the Holocaust, a clown who was once a top performer at a major circus falls hard after a career slump. One day after being arrested by the Gestapo for mocking Hitler, he finds himself in a work camp. At the lowest point in his life, during a chance encounter with some child prisoners, he realizes that he may still be able to at least bring joy to these young kids. Performing the best he can, the broken man is heartened by the reactions of his young audience. However, the Nazi leaders at the camp are not too thrilled by his bringing of joy and force him to be separated. Ultimately, after he continues to defy their orders, he is commanded by pain of death to rally and escort the children to a train headed to the notorious death camp Auschwitz, but after a mistake finds he, himself, trapped in one of the cars, he is forced to accept fate. Ultimately he is tasked with leading the children into the “showers”, and the film ends with him entertaining the children one last time before fading out. Their fate was sealed.

Doesn’t that sound like fun?! No. This was the reaction of just about everyone who saw the film during its limited screenings in 1972. The film was described in the nicest terms as “misguided” and “confused” and at worst “a catastrophe”. The question is, what really happened? Well, Lewis himself had always been rather secretive about the project, but other sources indicate that during filming and post, he took over as director and began making a plethora of changes to the script to make the lead character more sympathetic. The clown was meant to have a redemption arc, but instead he was written as a man who was simply broken and needed that last moment of inspiration to feel redeemed, as opposed to being a complete dirtbag at the start. On top of that, Lewis attempted to inject more of his personality into the character. He renamed the protagonist to Helmut Doork and added several moments of schtick to the screenplay. The days leading up the film’s initial screenings led Lewis to believe he was making something important, and his notorious arrogance shined through, not only during the production but during the pitches and press bytes. The movie showed, and his time as a leading man was marked as “over”. Sure, Lewis continued performing, but this movie was a demarcation point in his career. To this day, with all of his legacy aside, The Day the Clown Cried is the single piece of ephemera that has boundlessly captivated film historians, students and fans.

Becoming something of a legend these days, The Day the Clown Cried has been the subject of discussions in terms of remakes, documentaries and just plain fascination in Hollywood for over twenty years. A number of performers, including Robin Williams, have been considered for a remake, adapting the film’s original screenplay, but nothing ever came about. This movie has such a legendary stigma to it that it has become somewhat untouchable, while at the same time remaining a holy grail among cinema fanatics. It’s very, very difficult to find footage of the movie and very few people have actually seen it in its entirety, in its original cut. Every few years or so, footage of the film will leak onto the Internet but will often be removed. This is largely due to the fact that the only official print of the movie is in Lewis’ own possession, as he continues to demand the film never be released or seen by anyone. It has also been tied up in litigation for decades, with various involved parties fighting over control of the finished product, but the stalwart Lewis has never stopped fighting to prevent it from coming to light.

By all accounts, the lore and history behind the Day the Clown Cried is far more captivating than the film itself. I’ve only seen glimpses of the finished product, getting the rest of my knowledge of the plot from various sources online. From what I saw, it’s a dreary and honestly kind of ugly film visually, with very low-lighting and lots of walls and backdrops that are dirty or aged. The scenes I’ve seen that are a little brighter looking are overshadowed by the film’s tone. It doesn’t help going in knowing what the movie is actually about. All of the fluff at the start seems that much more meaningless.

I have always wondered what the ultimate intention was for The Day the Clown Cried. I am of the mind that any story can be told, and any story told well, no matter what the subject, can be appreciated. However, from all I’ve heard, this is one big hot mess. Any time footage leaks onto the Internet, there is a brief period of buzz followed by a sudden silence. Almost as though everyone who was ever excited about seeing it actually really regrets their decision afterward.

Faces Behind the Camera - Bryan Fuller

2015-03-10T06:56:00.000-07:00

Bryan Fuller (source: IMDB)

You know “that guy”? Yeah! Him! Everybody has that one actor in film and TV that just pops up everywhere but you never know his name or remember what you saw him in. Now, what if “that guy” was not an actor but a television creator, writer and producer? Now, imagine that the same individual was responsible for some of the best television shows of the last fifteen years. Yeah. That’s Bryan Fuller.

The closest point of comparison to Fuller I can make is a somewhat more whimsical version of Joss Whedon, the creator of TV’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly and, most recently, the director of Marvel’s The Avengers movies. Like Whedon, Fuller has a knack for writing captivating characters in unique situations and he excels at dialogue. For a big-budget Hollywood movie, sometimes just dangling keys is enough to be entertaining, but having to operate on a limited budget for a TV show spanning a broader length in terms of story is much more difficult, especially when you are trying to sell an audience something so strange as to be occasionally unsettling.

A characteristic of Bryan Fuller’s series that I actually kind of like is his somewhat light approach to the dark topic of death. Almost all of his shows have some darker undertone superimposed on bright or humorous backdrop. This goes especially for his “big four” as I like to call them, but we’ll get to those in a moment. First, it is important to know that Fuller does not have many credits to his name, and that is often a positive sign… No, really. Granted, he has only been active in the industry since the late 90’s, so it stands to reason his career thus far would be barely impactful… right..?

Well, it really starts in 2000 with his work as a writer and producer on the spinoff series Star Trek Voyager. I am not really a Star Trek fan, per se. I have recently gotten into The Next Generation, watching episodes here and there, and liked what I’ve seen so far, but I have not watched Voyager, so I cannot really give any personal opinion on that one show, still, for an up-and-comer, landing such a position on such a storied franchise is very, very impressive. The question is: Does he prove himself worthy of gaining such a credit early on in his career?

Dead Like Me (Showtime; source: Pintrest)

The first of the “Big Four” is 2001’s Dead Like Me, one of my favorite shows of all time and one of the most criminally short-lived shows in the history of television (both will be running themes here). The series follows an apathetic teenager who died suddenly in an accident on her first day of work, only to be kicked back from the afterlife to the undead, tasked with becoming a Reaper. She is then forced in with a crew of fellow veterans of the Reaper title who seemed to be trapped in limbo as she carries out her duties, ferrying souls to the afterlife. It’s definitely a dark series but, in spite of its themes, it’s a comedy, and a damn-funny one at that. It’s defined by its uniquely sardonic take on death, while still dealing honestly with the effects of loss, especially on the family and how they are unwittingly watched over by a daughter who only felt unappreciated before her passing. It’s comically-grim, yet occasionally moving, and if you haven’t seen it, I give it my strongest recommendation.

Wonderfalls (2004; Fox)

Now, on that note, “Big Four” entry numero dos is Wonderfalls. This is the first show that would really begin to highlight Fuller’s curse as a producer of hitting the right note but never maintaining a series beyond a few seasons. This series ALSO followed an apathetic young lead, this time a worker at a gift shop for a Niagara Falls tourist trap. The cyclical girl begins to have strange hallucinations of anthropomorphic objects (sculptures and the like) around her place of employment appearing to come to life, giving her one-word clues to… something. When she discovers what that ‘something’ is, it becomes clear that as insignificant as she may have felt at first, she really does serve a greater purpose. Wonderfalls is a strange show filled with many of the quirks that made Dead Like Me so damn enjoyable. The writing is good, the characters are fleshed out naturally and never feel superfluous and the performances are all excellent. Sadly, this great series lasted only a handful of episodes before its ultimate cancellation, and I have only the simplest explanation as to why it didn’t really last: bad timing. It came up against the NBA games for the first third of its run, then Fox did what they do best, stopping the show dead in its tracks in favor of American Idol. After only four episodes, the show was forced into a three month hiatus, followed by another Fall hiatus that same year. The entire season (which was only 13 episodes) took ten-and-a-half months to complete. It never stood a chance.

This was a big problem in the mid-2000’s. The culture-killing Writers Strike of 2001 left many producers cold and bitter and what came out of that was an unfortunate and disastrous takeover of reality television. Since these shows were cheap to produce, required zero support from the Writer’s Guild of America and proved to be quite successful, most shows that ran in the early 2000’s were just cut off in favor of the cheaper alternative. This is why there was this massive sudden influx of dreadful reality TV that lasted for nearly a decade, with most networks only coming out of this Hellish slump in the last five-to-six years. During this period, Fox’s American Idol was an audience-stealer and, as a result of this, the network would preempt entire series in favor of this one show, airing it as much as five nights a week in some periods, during which they rarely offered any show alternatives. It was because of this decision that many cable networks began to rise up with their own original primetime programming, eventually taking over a majority of the prime time slots ever since. I’m sure, at this point, in-spite of Idol’s success, Fox is sort of kicking themselves for driving out their audience. Dead Like Me, Firefly and the excellent Freaks and Geeks were just a handful of shows killed by the WGA strike, the latter two of the three’s demise being helped along oh-so-handily by Fox executives..

Pushing Daisies (2007; ABC)

However, even after the unfortunate passing of Wonderfalls, Fuller was not deterred. In 2007, Pushing Daisies premiered, this time on ABC. This was a strange show. It was honestly unlike anything else on television. It had this whimsical tone, filled with wide-angle lenses, Douglas Adams-esque narration, odd undertones of death and sex and the occasional musical number, all set to a super-polished Americana theme peppered with very bright colors. The series followed the Piemaker, Ned, who discovered as a boy that he had the power to bring the dead back to life with a touch, but only for a few seconds. He learned tragically that if he did not touch the resurrected again, something (or someone) nearby will die in their stead. So naturally, as an adult, an intrepid P.I. is there to exploit his powers to talk to the dead to solve mysteries. Nope. Not kidding. They go on adventures and everything, and as funny as that sounds, there is a strong sense of tragedy surrounding the entire show. His best friend, the love of his life, and one of his few true friends dies and his choice to raise her from the dead for good leads to more than a few complications. Aside from someone else dying for her to live, there is the sad reality that he can never touch her. There is a heartbreaking poetry in this idea, and it is presented nearly flawlessly in Pushing Daisies. Also, like much of his work to this point, this series revolved heavily around death.

Pushing Daisies is, by-far, Fuller’s most successful series. It lasted two seasons but, unlike his previous shows that ended far too soon, I think it was enough. It ran its course, plots were addressed and resolved and any more would have just been turning the wheels. Instead of keeping this alive, Fuller and ABC did the right thing and touched it a second time, to put it down for good. Yet, during its run, it won numerous awards and was nominated multiple times. Lee Pace and Chi McBride were both great as always, but the show-stealer here was the then-mostly-unknown Kristin Chenoweth (unknown, at least, outside of the theatre scene). At the time of the show’s production, Chenoweth was already a beloved Broadway star and it shows in her performance. Her energy and vocal talents take over, especially in the second season, where she goes from being a supporting character to a more driving force in the overarching story. Every show has the one character that people remember the most coming out, and for me, Chenoweth’s Olive WAS this show.

This brings us to today. Bryan Fuller’s current notable project is the series Hannibal, a prequel to The Silence of the Lambs in which we see a younger Hannibal Lecter in his prime. I’ve watched the first few episodes of the series myself and I… didn’t really like it. Not to say that it was bad by any stretch. It certainly stands out in terms of quality compared to most shows on network television today, but I think knowing it was Fuller’s work going in left me a little jarred. It is so unlike his other efforts as to be sort of off-putting for me as a long-time fan. I wanted there to be a hint of the charm found in his previous works, but what I saw of Hannibal is far too serious. Now, I plan to go back and rewatch the first season, just so as not to dismiss it entirely because I may have missed something. I want to like Hannibal, I really do, but I will require a lot of convincing.

So, you have a talented young writer/producer who is notable for working on a few of the most criminally short-lived television series of all time. This is a running theme, largely because TV executives are forced to look at short-term gain through ratings rather than long-term popularity. It also doesn’t help that most of these shows were shoved into the fray against insurmountable odds. Still, they have their fans; and justifiably-so. Bryan Fuller is a tremendous talent and I as his career progresses on, I foresee him having a long string of successes and fan favorites. His vision and style is just unlike anyone else in the industry today, despite a few imitators. If you have not seen any of the series listed in this article, I strongly recommend checking them out, they are all good in their own distinct ways and have much wider appeal than their short runs might have you believe.

"Know" More Pop-Culture- The Grindhouse

2015-03-09T23:32:00.000-07:00

Just before the market crash of 1929 known now as Black Tuesday, movie theatres were opening like mad to accommodate the massive demand for a growing pop culture phenomenon dubbed the motion picture. Films were being churned out in numbers that are inconceivable by today’s standards, but shorter silent films were often inexpensive to produce and required little in terms of quality. So, the result was a pretty wide range of film ideas, some good and some… not so good. A not-so-well-known fact about the early days of cinema is “nudie” films were extremely common. Even in the 19th Century nickelodeons, a short film featuring a topless dancer was far more common than one might imagine. As films took to the big screen, and the Hays Code took over in the 1930’s, most of these sorts of films were driven out. Given their reputation and poor storage, most of these movies have suffered the tragic fate shared by so many films of the early 20th Century: degradation through disintegration. This was a consequence of the celluloid used for years to print film media. Since it was now “illegal” to show nudity and other banned content in theatres, an underground was formed.

42nd Street Grindhouses (Source: Soundonsight.org)

42nd St. in Manhattan is arguably the most famous theatre district in the world (not discounting Los Angeles’ famous Beverly Cinema), and many of the joints on this stretch of road were not ready to give up the profitability of sexuality. There was just one problem: That damn Hays Production Code! So, many theatres repurposed their floors to become burlesque theatres, performance theatres typically featuring women dancing seductively and singing songs riddled with innuendo. Some of these clubs also became associated with New York’s Red Light District, though most were nothing more than very tame strip clubs.

(Source: listal.com)

As the decades rolled on, the theatres that continued to show movies often bought reels to cheap movies of poor quality, showing them several times throughout the day, as opposed to the one or two showings-per-film common at that time. The rates would increase during the day, capping off around 6pm. This set the tradition of the Matinee Price so common in theatres. This trend continued through until the 70’s, when things began to change dramatically. This process of repeated showings became known as “grinding” and became the namesake of the theatres that practiced this new profitable idea. The existence of these “grindhouses” actually spurred a new market for cheap, quickly-produced films that in many ways were built to violate the already weakening Hays Code, featuring copious amounts of sex, graphic violence and other material that was, in that period, very controversial and some films are still shocking by today’s standards.

While these same grindhouses were showing films that would or could not be shown in other major theatres, they also did show many major releases, as well as a number of films that are widely regarded as modern classics. Another fact is some entire genres owe their very existence to these theatres. In-particular, slasher, spaghetti westerns, martial arts and blaxploitation films would likely have never caught on without help from the grindhouse districts. However, as the 80’s came around, the market for these films in theatres shrunk rapidly due to the proliferation of home video. Within a few years, the theatre market would collapse all around; a consequence of the rapidly-growing video market and the advent of megaplexes, which were competing to be bigger-budget attempts to monopolize local theatre markets by offering more and more movies and showings at a time in a single location.

The exploitation genre continues on, though it’s subgenres have split off, with newer films being mostly inspired by the 70’s classics rather than trying to craft any real identity of their own. However, in spite of the cinema collapse, the legacy of the grindhouse persists to this day directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are highly inspired by the films of the 70’s grindhouses and many modern action and horror movies draw a lot of inspiration from the grindhouses. Also, many films from the grindhouses’ heyday have found a new market thanks to home video and digital distribution, garnering a new cult following and have themselves crafted a dedicated and unified fan culture.

The question is: Were the grindhouses disreputable garbage heaps throwing out nothing but gore and pornography? Or, rather, were they inspirational and daring cultural hubs that would leave a lasting impression on future audiences? I would say they are a little of both. If they weren’t just a little controversial and didn’t do things differently from the norm, it is likely they would not even be talked about to this day. It left quite an impression by defying the standards and refusing to accept the rules set by a paranoid and aggressive censorship bureau, instead embracing the strange and opening the gates to a new idea of film that was not only unknown to most, but was outwardly banned by major theatres. The grindhouses paved the way for a new era of independent filmmakers and broke down barriers to artistic expression. Modern film would likely not even exist in its current form if it weren’t for this film culture. So, next time you scoff at an Italian sexsploitation flick, consider that many films you love may not have even been made if it weren’t for the theatre owners brave enough to show it in the first place.

TV Pilot Hell: Bubsy (1993)

2015-03-07T09:52:00.000-08:00

NOTE: When I wrote the first draft for this it was nine paragraphs and two-and-a-half pages long! I did my best to edit it down as much as possible.

The 90’s was a great decade for animation. Batman, Animaniacs, Daria… The list goes on and on and honestly, even the laziest, stupidest series from that decade seem to have their fair share of fans. However, there has always been one medium that has failed to create a real lasting success in animation: Video Games. Sure, there were moderate successes like The Super Mario Bros. Super Show and Sonic Sat. A.M., but these were mostly short-lived and more reflected the popularity of their source material than any actual objective quality. So, given the (at best) mediocre standards of video games-to-animation, where does Bubsy fit on that scale?

Well, first, a little backstory: Bubsy was a mascot game created for the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis in the early 90’s. It was an effort by the fledgling studio Accolade to create a lasting series and, surprisingly, it kind of worked. The few games in the series were spread across the SNES, Genesis, Jaguar and the Playstation and Bubsy 3D, released on Sony’s flagship console, is ranked among the worst video games ever made. So, in a nutshell, Bubsy was an attempt by a B-studio to put out a game that will be their Mario or Sonic. Accolade was banking so hard on this that they actually commissioned to have an animation group work on a tie-in for their game. The company of choice was a small studio called Calico Creations. Never heard of them? Well, how couldn’t you!? I mean they are only the masters who brought us the majestic Denver the Last Dinosaur and Widget the World Watcher! I mean, come on! (No… Seriously, these guys were bad…. Very bad.)

On paper, there is one promising credit: Rob Paulsen, who did the voice for Bubsy in the games and is back for the TV show. Paulsen is a tremendously-accomplished voice actor who worked on just about every animated series of note from the past thirty years. He’s a highly-regarded talent and hearing his voice in this show is like if Peter O’Toole interrupted one of Michael Bay and Ehren Kruger's comic relief moments to give a resounding monologue. They must have been desperate and paid him a ton in hopes that this series would catch on. As with most animated tie-ins from its time, Bubsy was an attempt to expand name recognition and popularity. It didn’t work… at all…

That was a lot of setup to cover and for that, I apologize. Still, even knowing myself the ill fate of this franchise going in, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. The pilot for Bubsy is entitled “What Could Possibly Go Wrong?” (Which was also the title character’s uninspired catch phrase), and follows Bubsy, his friend Arnold (voiced by another talented voice performer in Pat Fraley), and a couple of obnoxious twins as Bubsy volunteers to be the guinea pig for a powerful piece of technology created by doctor Virgil (...ugh) Reality. The device is a helmet that can harness the imagination of its wearer and conjure it into reality. So, essentially it’s Anthony from Twilight Zone: The Movie… except more overblown and stupid. The rest of the episode involves all of the characters, and a team of villains led by a spoiled, fat, female cat, battling for control over the helmet. It’s all a device to create a bunch of slapstick animated set pieces to sell the show, and boy does it fail.

The problem with Bubsy as a character is, even in the video games, he was essentially a Sonic rip-off with greatly-inferior level design and there simply isn’t much you can do with this premise. At least with Sonic going in there actual characters and a plot that felt like it could be fleshed out in some way, but Bubsy was never that interesting to begin with. It would be like making Frogger into an animated series (Oh! WAIT!!! They actually DID that!) A result of this lack of personality is a lead character that is forced and over-confident as to be completely stupid. This has worked in the past with some characters (Bugs Bunny, for instance) but here, it just feels like Bubsy suffers from some sort of chemical imbalance that leaves him completely incapable of expressing any emotion outside of “Ohhhhh yeaaaah!”.

Now, to talk about the actual quality of the episode. A common problem with a lot of animated series is the writers and animators go in wanting their show to be for kids and simply try to make it as flashy and noisy as they can to keep their interest, forgetting that even silly shows like Animaniacs had a fair share of quieter character moments. When the show is just noise and grunting from start to finish “exhausting” doesn’t even begin to describe it. There is not one moment for the audience to breathe here. Either Bubsy is fast-talking and spouting out his catch phrase for the tenth time or Arnold is grunting and growling after every line. Every character has one joke that is driven in over and over for the entire episode and the animation is lackluster and lazy, with most scenes just showing the characters in one frame posing or falling on a moving background. This show is scene-to-scene just noise and flashing lights. It has no substance and not even one joke lands, it’s all wrong.

I find it interesting that Obvious Villain Cat character (I can’t be bothered to look her up name again) uses nails on a chalkboard to torture her minions because this show felt like someone was doing that for twenty minutes. It’s loud, stupid, unfunny and really just boring. As bad as this is, and as shocked as I was watching it, I will likely not even remember seeing this before too long. It just was not interesting enough to care about and it doesn’t surprise me that it wasn’t picked up to series. It was further proof that a show that is clumsily thrown together as an advertisement for a brand most people were already indifferent about just doesn’t work. Still, that hasn’t kept studios from trying over and over again.

TV Pilot (Heaven!) - Northern Exposure (1992)

2015-03-05T08:01:00.001-08:00

Northern Exposure (1990-1995; CBS)

Creators: Joshua Brand and Joe Falsey

Starring: Rob Morrow, Barry Corbin, Janie Turner

When I was a kid, there was a lot of hype surrounding Northern Exposure. It aired as a mid-season replacement on CBS in the Summer of 1990. After CBS’s 10pm timeslot opened up with that Spring’s finale of the beloved Newhart and the failure of The Dave Thomas Comedy Show, this little series came out of nowhere and become a winning and beloved titan in the eyes of millions.

Rob Morrow plays Joel Fleischman, a New York doctor who is given an opportunity to work in lovely Anchorage, Alaska, but his big greeting to the city hospital does not go as planned. He is informed his position was full and was redirected to the small, fictional town of Cicely, Alaska where he is greeted by a shrewd former astronaut who is consumed by his desire to turn his small hole-in-the-wall town into a booming resort. Trapped in this strange place due to a legal contract, the breaking of which could result in a prison sentence, Joel opens a small practice with only the help of the awkward Marilyn. Joel interacts with the locals, including a tomboyish pilot and a friendly young leather-clad bro-dude, and it all seems he has to make the best of it while he waits for his wife (who is still in the big city) to finally arrive in town.

Northern Exposure had a lot going for it; a funny premise, a smart and talented cast and a great team of writers, but the show had a troubled history behind the scenes. After the first few seasons were extremely successful, CBS inexplicably cut the show mid-season to air new test programming during Sweeps. This killed any momentum the show had for that running season. Other issues, including actors demanding more pay and a failed list of new characters being introduced drive viewers away, resulting the in the show’s ultimate cancellation. A lot of this could be traced back to some of its stars (Morrow in-particular), moving into film. Morrow landed a major role in the critical darling Quiz Show, and as a result he began to seek either more compensation from CBS, or better film roles. Sadly, his film career never really took off. He’s a charismatic performer, good looking and was adaptable, able to play different types of characters, but ultimately his career landed him back in TV on the quality crime thriller Numb3rs after a decade of movie flops.

This is an example of how a very simple premise, a likeable cast and a smart team of writers can create something special under very strenuous circumstances. A midseason replacement always has a few things going against it. First, it moves in to fill a time slot for a show that people just did not watch. Reason then dictates they were watching something else. DVR was not a thing, and while you could record a different channel on the VCR at the same time, it was still a toss-up battling two other networks’ existing programming (Fox did not have a slot past 10pm). Secondly, there is the risk of the network experimenting with other new programming for the Fall season. This is what happened in Northern Exposure in its last year, with CBS breaking the season up to test other new shows in its slot. The final major obstacle for this series was the fact that it ran on Monday nights, meaning for several months out of the year it was competing with ABC’s Monday Night Football.

All-in-all, Northern Exposure tenaciously triumphed over great adversity thanks to a devoted fanbase and the chops that come from being a multi-year Emmy and Golden Globe nominee. The final season’s cast and crew changes did it in, but that happens all of the time with TV, and the fact that this show lasted for four seasons is quite the accomplishment because most shows do not make it that far, even some really good ones. It’s a funny, well-written show with a lot of warmth (in spite of the climate) and lastly, I’m willing to bet the mooseburger is actually quite delicious.

"Know" More Pop-Culture - What Happened With 'Turn-On'?

2015-03-04T10:47:00.001-08:00

Turn-On's TV Title Card (ABC Television; 1969)

In February of 1969, a notorious TV pilot would air that would shock many and become notorious as one of the biggest television disasters in history. I mean, the events of that fateful night make the trainwreck that was Joanie Loves Chachi look like Cheers by comparison. So, what happened?

ABC led up to Turn-On with a lot of promotional hype. It was the brainchild of the previous year’s big hit Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In’s executive producer George Schlatter, and the network was ready to set it up for a full twelve-episode first season before the pilot even aired. Turn-On premiered on February 5th, 1969 at the 8:30pm time slot. All seemed innocuous enough on the surface and with popular McHale’s Navy-star Tim Conway guest-hosting, people tuned in to see what ABC had been selling them for months.

Turn-On Promo;
TV Guide Clipping

Reactions to the show were immediate and visceral. The Cleveland, OH ABC affiliate refused to continue airing the show after the first commercial break and Denver’s local producers refused to air the show at all after the network screening. The show was described as “crass” and “blue”, bombarding the sensitive 1969 American audience with fast and not-so-subtle sex jokes. A second episode was recorded in full, but was never released, with only a few very brief scenes clipped in as part of a documentary for BBC Channel-4 in the UK. It is incredibly difficult to find footage of this show, but the few scenes I have seen indicate this show’s cancellation was not a tragic loss by any stretch.

Most of the show had slapdash sketches and quick stingers filmed in front of a blank white stage backdrop. There would be props and some set dressing for certain sketches, but it was all actually pretty plain. This was likely an artistic choice as the very funny piece of TV psychedelia that was Laugh-In came from the same producers and it had more quality in its production design. Some complained that the show was unwatchable due to the hyper-kinetic editing which, mixed with the white background, reportedly caused some viewers to become “physically ill”, though, I do not know how true this actually is. In reality, Turn-On was likely just too much for the audiences of its time. The sex references and the very direct jabs at public figures like Richard M. Nixon really put people off of the show. A number of affiliates issued complaints their local customers made, and the show was killed for good a few days after its debut.

The notorious pilot didn’t do much for the cast, either. The lovely Teresa Graves would go on to join Laugh-In that year, but only for one season. She would then appear in a few blaxploitation films (most notably the Fred Williamson vehicle That Man Bolt) and would get her own short-lived show Get Christie Love! in the mid 70’s. She then would retire from acting shortly thereafter and would focus primarily on philanthropy. Tim Conway kept doing his thing, and remained successful in-spite of this disaster. He later spoke about it, not really showing any regrets. In-fact, he was in good spirits about it, but Conway was already a TV veteran by 1969, so he’d seen the worst come and go.

By most accounts, Turn-On was simply ahead of its time. It was too much for the period in which it aired and it would be more than six years before SNL would piss off half the country in 1975, but it just did it a lot better. A large factor that arguably led to the show’s abrupt end was that it just wasn’t that funny. It was all edge and no wit. Carol Burnett put TV comedy over the edge in the 60’s and 70’s but inspite of all of her controversies in her time, she was a well-loved and respected woman, but most of all she was just very, very talented. Not to discount Tim Conway in any respect, but even his chops weren’t enough to keep Turn-On… Turned on… (Sorry I couldn’t resist… it was too easy)

TV Pilot Hell - Turner & Hooch (1990)

2015-03-04T09:43:00.001-08:00

The dreaded one-joke premise. It’s a nearly guaranteed show-killer and here, we have an absolutely braindead TV sitcom based on a pretty bad police comedy. Quality TV series based on movie franchises are extremely rare and this is an example of how to take a movie that was already pretty unfunny and drive its single joke right into the ground. The first ten minutes of this TV series seems like an hour, and it doesn’t get any better.

In 1990, Tom Hanks was already too hot a commodity to appear in low-grade crap like this, so instead we get B-list actor Thomas F. Wilson as Det. Scott Turner, who most probably remember best as Biff Tannen from the Back to the Future movies, or as Coach Fredricks from Freaks & Geeks. He’s not a bad performer when he’s playing off of better actors, but here he is just awful. He is not leading-man-material, and he spends every scene struggling through his lines. However, as much as I complain about Wilson’s performance, the supporting cast is far worse. This film even goes so far as to add an obnoxious delinquent kid to the mix, making what is already a really lazy and dull comedy into something that is nothing short of unwatchable. He is far, far worse than Kid from Dick Tracy, another legendarily bad child performance from around that time, and like Hooch, he has one character trait: He gets into trouble! Oh… how zany… To top it all off, this show ends with a pillow fight between the kid and Turner complete with period-appropriate sax solo and a freeze frame on Hooch. I wish I were making this up…

The rest of the supporting cast includes Wendee Pratt as Mrs. Turner. She had a few roles after this but is mostly known for her brief run on the soap opera One Life to Live. The rest of the characters just show up then disappear, having no real effect on the show, existing only to set up the next scene. Comic Relief Cop (his name is ‘Boney’... Because he’s fat..?) appears to tell Det. Turner what the next act of the show is and sends him on his way, and the show has a brief appearance by a lively chef who knows Turner, and I am assuming he is meant to be a recurring character but here he only exists to facilitate the introduction of that damn kid.

This show is written in cliches. This is common in sitcoms, but here everything has been done over and over again and Turner & Hooch goes the extra mile by taking those cliches and just replaying them ad-nauseum during its 23 minute run. The kid is a runaway thief who ends up in the care of the unwilling cop. The wife is a goody-goody who wants to help the “misunderstood” kid, only existing in the entire show to make sure Turner is stuck with Hooch and an aggravating child actor (Det. Turner really needs to get a divorce). There are no other cops of consequence and imagine my surprise when the titular cop wasn’t called in to get chewed out by his tightly-wound and heavily-caffeinated chief.

All of those complaints aside, the episode is just a mess. Scenes bounce between each other so fast it is actually a little disorienting and I have a sinking feeling this was meant to be a one-hour block but was cut in half after producers saw the finished product. I make that assumption based on the fact that it feels like chunks of the show are missing. Character introductions are fast and short and never really establish any sort of relationship. The marriage between Det. Turner and his wife feels more like the relationship between a homeowner and a maid. The kid in the show is bad, sure, but he seems like he was born ready to wind up in the care of a cop, never showing any resistance or surprise about anything. Ultimately, nothing comes together. There are sections of the story that feel lost and there is zero, ZERO character development. The only thing we get is Hooch running into things, knocking people over and simply just causing a ruckus so we can get a zany jazz solo followed by a soul-crushingly-bad reaction shot from Thomas Wilson, who acted like he just didn’t want to be there at all.

Turner & Hooch aired on NBC in the Summer of 1990. A Summer premiere (especially pre-2000) is usually a bad sign anyway, but hoooo-boy! 1990 was a bad, BAAAAD year for television. To give you an idea of how awful this year was, Turner & Hooch, as stillborn and bland as it is, is not the worst cop-with-a-dog comedy series of that Summer! The problem with Turner & Hooch is it’s just boring and lazy. Outside of some of the performances, there isn’t really anything painful about it, and I can honestly see myself forgetting this show even exists. At least with famously bad shows like Small Wonder you remember why it was bad. Less than an hour after sitting through this snore-fest I was only thinking about what I wanted for lunch.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 1 - The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

2015-03-03T13:35:00.000-08:00

The Shawshank Redemption (1994;
Castle Rock Entertainment)

Director: Frank Darabont

Writers: Frank Darabont screenplay adapted from the short story by Stephen King

Starring: Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton, Clancy Brown

Here it is. After all this time, all the delays, everything… I’m here. The Shawshank Redemption is my favorite film of all time. I have a few reasons for this. First, this movie came out when I was still pretty young, and I saw it for the first time at thirteen (I think). It changed the way I saw movies forever. It was the first real drama that I ever fell in love with, and after seeing it I needed to see more. I was inspired to seek out all the movies I had heard about but never saw because they weren’t action or comedy movies, and it opened up an entirely new world for me. Aside from the very personal influence this had on me as a film fan, it is objectively a great, great movie. It was nominated for numerous Oscars but did not take home any statuettes, but then again, it was the 1995 Academy Awards, where it was up against the likes of Forrest Gump, Quiz Show and Pulp Fiction. That is some stiff, STIFF competition.

The film follows a banker named Andy Dufresne who is convicted of murdering his wife and her supposed lover and sentenced to life within the dreary stone walls of Shawshank Prison. There he befriends a slick smuggler named Red who begins to guide him and help him adjust to the reality that faces him. However, Andy refuses to embrace his fate, taking every opportunity to remind his fellow inmates that there is hope beyond the prison’s walls. He enters the corrupt prison and changes the lives of everyone there by simply refusing to let go of hope.

The Shawshank Redemption is not slogged down by a lot of the typical cliches of modern dramas. There is no forced romance, no comic relief, no big tense dramatic moments (at least not until the very, very end of the film) and no forced melodrama. The movie is told over several years of Andy’s sentence until his ultimate and impossible escape. He leaves behind hope to his friends and retribution to those who abused their power.

One can come up with any number of allegories that may fit the story of Shawshank, but I like it as a simple story of a man who changes everything. I know deeper meaning can be found, but I prefer to see this film today the same as I did in my young age. It means something to me. It was a demarcation point in my life as a kid growing up in a period of excess, where I began to seek out something different than what was being sold to me. It has had a tremendous impact on me because, to this day, I remember how this movie changed me, and I am always willing to find the next movie to forever alter the way I perceive popular culture.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 2 - Schindler's List (1993)

2015-03-03T13:05:00.000-08:00

Schindler's List (1993; Universal Pictures)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Writers: Thomas Keneally (novel); Steven Zaillian (Screenplay)

Starring: Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes

This is the film a lot of hardcore film fans probably expected to be #1. It currently ranks #7 on the IMDB top 100, it’s #8 on the American Film Institute’s, and it won an impressive seven Oscars including best picture. It’s probably as close to “perfect” as a film can get. The only reason it is number 2 on my list is because the number one slot is reserved for my favorite film of all time. It’s a personal choice, and does in no way mean I think less of this movie. That said…

Schindler’s List tells the story of industrialist Oskar Schindler (Neeson), a shrewd businessman who operates in the employ of the Third Reich for the war effort while turning a profit, but in the end, he is faced with a choice: greed, or the right thing. The film is told in two parts: the first focuses on the Nazi’s advance in power and their segregation of Jews into the ghettos, the second centers on the Final Solution, where the remaining few were shipped to camps and a systematic genocide began. Meanwhile, Schindler himself is hiring a number of Jewish workers for his factory and as he is essential to the Reich’s success at the time, he becomes an obstacle of sorts for the cruel Nazi Lieutenant Amon Goeth (Fiennes). Schindler’s right-hand man Mr. Stern (Kingsley) begs him to help, but at first Schindler is reluctant until a fateful encounter at a Nazi train depot almost finds Stern in Birkenau until Schindler cames to his rescue. After this near loss of his colleague and friend he is inspired to do all he can to save as many lives as possible by signing them on as recruits for his factories to protect them from the trains to the concentration camps. Of course, there is a lot more to this film than that, but for a core synopsis, that’s the best I can word it.

Schindler’s List forces the audience into a hard position. If you were Oskar Schindler, how far would you go to save these otherwise-doomed souls from the hands of the evil Third Reich? Because, his stand against Hitler’s forces could have not only cost him his enterprise, but his very life. Yet, the revelation that he can use his influence to help people, even if it is just a few in the grand scheme, makes his actions all that more meaningful. This is a story of one man doing all he can to save only a few lives at the risk of losing his freedom.

The film is shot in beautiful black and white, having a deep contrast creating a very crisp look. Every shot is astounding, too. There are beautiful scenes juxtaposed against a rightfully-mournful tone. Likely the most striking and memorable visual moment shows a young girl in a bright red dress against the entirely black and white scene. This one piece of symbolism has become the defining image of the film from an artistic standpoint.

The performances by all involved are just excellent, too. Ralph Fiennes in-particular gives a grim and harrowing Oscar-nominated performance as the Nazi officer. Every scene with him is just chilling. Unlike a cartoonish villain lacking humanity, we see that in him because we know what he is, but his performance is quite understated despite a few shocking moments. Liam Neeson gives the best performance of his career here and shows a hint of just how much of an essential performer he could have continued to be if it weren’t for the dreadful Phantom Menace grinding his career to a screeching halt for nearly a decade.

I railed against the Oscars a few times during this list but the Academy got it right in 1994, because in-spite of not ONE actor from this film winning an Oscar, the movie as a whole was recognized for the artistic achievement it was. There are very, very few films that really depict the Holocaust in any capacity for a few reasons. First, it isn’t the sort of subject one associates with “entertainment” and secondly, if you mess things up, you are through. Nobody will respect you as a filmmaker again. This goes all the way back to the notorious Italian Nazi exploitation flicks of the 70’s which have gone down in legend as some of the most deplorable pieces of cinema ever filmed. So, it’s understandably-rare to see a quality, successful film tackle this subject, especially as masterfully as Schindler’s List does.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 3 - Pulp Fiction (1994)

2015-03-03T03:35:00.000-08:00

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Pulp Fiction (1994; Miramax)

Writer: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Bruce Willis, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer

I want to be clear here, and I do not think this is hyperbole: 1994 is one of the greatest years in the history of film. SEVEN of my top 40 movies of the 90’s are just from 1994. The American Film Institute released their updated list of 100 Greatest Movies in 2005, a list spanning a century of film, and there were four movies on their list from 1994. In fact, Pulp Fiction isn’t even the last film on THIS list from that year!

Pulp Fiction is a series of interwoven stories of violence and debauchery and it is absolutely glorious. There is no one scene that isn’t captivating. It is a powerhouse of cool direction, a distinct and fresh look and tone, and most of all a stunning screenplay. So, naturally, it didn’t win the Oscar in 1995, but I’ve already gone over how worthless the Academy Awards are so I won’t bother you with that again. Instead, let’s talk about one of the greatest films of all time.

Before directing Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino made a couple other genre films including the previously-reviewed Reservoir Dogs. Tarantino draws heavy inspiration from the classic 42nd St. Grindhouses of the 60’s and 70’s. These theaters were known for their release of unvetted indie films, often branding the exploitation label, that for the most part remained unrated and rarely saw any release outside of these theatres until the mid-to-late 80’s. These are the theatres that brought us the great Blaxploitation classics like Shaft and Superfly, the two of which were rare examples of great movies leaving the Grindhouse and getting a wide release (largely thanks to their hit theme songs). We also saw a lot of graphic horror from Italian directors like Lucio Fulci and Bruno Mattei who rarely saw any form of wide distribution, even in the video market, their films mostly remaining cult classics looming in the underground horror scene.

So, what does this have to do with Pulp Fiction? Well, this is a movie that amalgamates ideas from the various genres of the time. The title refers to “Pulp” a largely pejorative word used to describe entertainment that is considered low-quality but is widely popular. The movie uses directorial styles, fashions and concepts that were common in the Grindhouses, but were rarely embraced by the mainstream film industry. This is part of what makes Pulp Fiction such an amazing film, it is a beloved, winning classic that employs and draws its inspiration from films that were almost entirely marginalized. It’s very acclaim and success is itself a commentary on the manufactured idea of “mainstream” entertainment.

Pulp Fiction’s plot is actually a series of interconnected storylines all wrapped around a handful of jobs and the daily lives of two hitmen, Julius and Vincent (Jackson and Travolta). They exchange memorable banter as they travel around Los Angeles, from cleaning out an apartment of misguided college kids, to taking a local crime lord’s wife (Thurmond) out for a night on the town. Between these wrapper plot lines, we get other stories revolving around a boxer on a rough deal and a couple of crazed robbers, and that really does only scratch the surface.

The fascinating thing about the film is how everything really comes together. We see plotlines that are, at first, complete non sequiturs, but as the film goes on, harkening back to these scenes reveals a beautifully-woven series of smaller stories forming a greater whole. In fact, I believe (and this is speculation) a large part of why this film is so beloved is how it uses these stories to paint an involving picture that encourages audiences to see how it all comes together, creating a sort of active viewing experience. You mind is processing the stories individually, and when it all comes together it is like an ecstatic revelation.

There isn’t a bad performance in this movie. Not one. This is very rare as even the best movies have a few throwaway acting choices, but Tarantino's meticulousness pays off here. The cast is huge and everyone has a reason to be there. This is all supported by the screenplay and, to be honest, if this were a top 40 based on writing alone, Pulp Fiction would be number one. This is hands down one of the greatest screenplays of all time. It’s fast, witty and the dialogue, even from the simplest scenes, is superb. It’s funny and has a charm and character you just don’t see in most movies, this especially goes for Oscar movies, which actually trend on the boring side (and I say this as a film snob).

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 4 - Goodfellas (1990)

2015-03-02T10:59:00.002-08:00

Goodfellas (1990; Warner Bros.)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writer: Nicholas Peleggi

Starring: Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci, Robert De Niro

Scorsese returns for his final film on my list. Goodfellas is the astoundingly-told odyssee of a man’s rise through the ranks of a local crime family, and his ultimate fall. Henry Hill (Liotta) grew up admiring the local gangs. The mob guys were the ones with the fancy clothes, nice cars and most of all, the respect. As he grew up, his ties to a local heavy-hitter named Jim Conway (De Niro) and his association with the violent and unpredictable Tommy (Pesci), drove him to climb the ranks in the Family, at his peak becoming a successful and respected leader. All seems well, but as a shaky marriage crumbles, and addiction consumes his life, Hill’s legacy becomes a faded memory barely filling an otherwise hollow shell.

As I said in my article on Casino, Scorsese knows how to tell an epic character study that spans many years. Goodfellas’ narrative is told from the perspective of a man who always loved what he had become, until finally we see what he becomes by the end of the story. It seems like it may have even been glorifying the life of a gangster, until we see what happens to those who are deep inside. It’s a hard-edge look at the lives of a few powerful guys and how everything can all so easily fall apart.

Liotta gives a career-defining performance here. I’ve always liked him as an actor, but I have yet seen him recreate the excellence he showed here. Scorsese can often bring the best out of his performers and Liotta seems like he was just right for this role. Good looking, smart, fast, a strong commanding voice… everything he needed was there and he didn’t just take it and run, he owned it. Every scene he is in is highlighted by a subtle acting style that reflects mood and tone so well that you feel sucked in. Joe Pesci gives his most famous (and Oscar-winning) role here, notably in the classic “Am I funny to you?!” scene. Lastly, De Niro gives one of his more understated performances here, never going too far into the extreme, rather finding a nice soft balance. His emotional scenes are so good, and he has just enough presence to not be overshadowed while never feeling like he’s trying to steal the show, as De Niro is occasionally want to do.

Goodfellas has gone down as one of the greatest films of all time, and like many movies that share this title, it was heavily snubbed by the tone-deaf Academy. It received a number of nominations, but Liotta was snubbed his nomination shot, and the film lost the Best Picture nod to the absolutely dull Dances With Wolves, a film that only has a legacy of being the movie Avatar rips off. 1991’s awards have somewhat become notorious, and deservingly-so. Have YOU heard of most of those movies? Probably not. Dances with Wolves, sure. Awakenings was a good movie, yes. However, Goodfellas’ Oscar-snub is just another mark on an already messy and unreliable record for The Academy Awards, with most of the more winning films going down as forgotten or mediocre pieces, while the movies that got the finger tend to be highly praised… I’m talking to YOU How Green Was My Valley?! (If you don’t know, look it up)

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 5- Reservior Dogs (1992)

2015-03-02T02:42:00.001-08:00

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Chris Penn

Reservior Dogs (1992; Miramax Pictures)

The heist film is a classic genre with a long proud tradition of quality films. Going all the way back to the silent era, the crime caper has been seminal in the action/thriller genres. In 1992, Quentin Tarantino brought us Reservoir Dogs, a heist movie where the heist is only part of the story. The core of the movie involves the interactions between a group of thieves hired to work a job for a local boss. In an empty warehouse, the tough crew awaits their chance to meet up with their contractor, and finally split to leave this botch-job behind them, but nothing is that simple. The entire job is a mess from the start, and while all of the hired men claim to be professionals, these guys do not work well together for the most part. It all culminates in a series of disasters, betrayals and surprises that just make this a fun sit.

The quality of this film comes down to a few key points. First off, you have Tarantino’s trademark fast, witty banter and it is top-notch here. The often funny dialogue and perfectly distinct personalities of the characters makes this film flow smoothly. For a flick that takes place almost entirely in a mostly-empty warehouse with only a few interactions at a time, Dogs really never feels slow or flat. It comes down to the dialogue and execution. Second is the way violence is used in the movie. While all of Tarantino's films are violent, unlike Kill Bill, which revels in it's 70's exploitation ways, Reservior Dogs' bloodier scenes are disturbing and really nail home the personalities of the characters involved.

There are a few notably memorable scenes, too, arguably the most famous of which involves Madsen, duct tape, a straight razor and Stealer’s Wheel. If you know the scene you know this movie. If you haven’t seen this famous movie moment, do not just go watch the one scene. Instead, seek out Reservior Dogs in full and watch it through. It isn’t a long movie, but it is a fun quotable, delightfully-exploitative and gritty picture full of everything Tarantino does best, all presented with a snappy screenplay and a spot-on cast of great actors in their prime.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 6: The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

2015-02-27T22:16:00.001-08:00

The Silence of the Lambs (1991; Orion Pictures)

Director: Jonathan Demme

Writer: Ted Nally adapted from the novel by Thomas Harris

Starring: Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, Ted Levine

I gave a nod to one of Demme’s other great 90’s classics Philadelphia previously on this list. While Philadelphia was an excellent film with a career-changing performance for its star Tom Hanks, it did lack one thing, a really good villain. For that matter.... Why don’t we just have two?!

The Silence of the Lambs is the story of a young FBI academy member named Clarice Starling who finds herself entangled in an investigation into the disappearance of a girl. Believed to be the work of a serial killer who calls himself “Buffalo Bill”, the very desperate federal agency forces the nervous yet bright young Starling to interview yet another, far worse, killer: the cannibalistic psychopath Hannibal Lecter. The hope of which being she would be able to appeal to him for a profile to aid in the apprehension of Bill, and the rescue of the missing girl.

In hindsight it’s easy to miss, but The Silence of the Lambs was a very important demarcation point in procedural filmmaking. Most commonly, the perspectives in these sorts of movies were fixed. We would see events from one character, or at least from one side of an investigation. This is in the vein of the classics of Agatha Christie, who crafted her tales in such a way to keep the reader guessing and involved in the mystery. The Silence of the Lambs takes things in a different direction. Instead of being trapped on one side of the struggle, or even being a fly on the wall, the story is told from a rather omnipotent perspective. We see Clarice being called in to work on the case, we see the creepy and famous scene of her walking to the end of the "dungeon" to find an unsettling image of Lecter waiting stiffly for her arrival, but then we see a girl trapped in a well, we see an insane man dressing in drag and dancing almost comically in front of a mirror, and we even get some perspective from Bill’s dog! The goal here is to craft a story from all of the facts simultaneously, dropping them all in at once, and all the audience can do is hope and wait. It answers the question of whether or not you would WANT to know what happened, even if everything did not turn out alright.

This is a film built entirely on the performance of Hopkins as Lecter. Aside from the standard serial killer plot that wraps the film, this character is the image and identity of this movie. Even those who have never seen Silence of the Lambs, any of the other Hannibal Lecter movies (not recommended) or the recent TV show, likely knew who Lecter was by reputation. He has become the standard by which movie villain performances are measured, and for good reason. Hopkins’ Oscar-winning performance sold this movie. The plot is actually quite ludacris, Buffalo Bill is insane in a rather comical way and much of the cinematography is flat, except for a few notable scenes. No. This is about Lecter. Hopkins’ performance is so good in this movie, that not only is he the lynchpin here, but his portrayal of the mad doctor makes it nearly impossible to really enjoy any other cracks at the character from other performers, and for me this includes Mads Mikkelsen, who is good, but nowhere near this good.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 7: Casino (1995)

2015-02-27T21:44:00.000-08:00

Casino (1995; Universal Pictures)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writer: Nicholas Pileggi

Starring: Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone

For anyone noticing a distressing lack of Scorsese on my list, here you go. As the modern master of these long character epics, Scorsese has built his career on telling the tales of the underbelly of urban America. Casino, his stab at Vegas greed and mob influence, is by far one of his best films. I say this for a number of reasons, but most of all it comes down to how he reveals these characters to us.

Casino’s plot is somewhat hard to narrow down as it covers the lives of these characters over a time span measured in years. It centers on powerful Casino boss ‘Ace’ Rothstein (De Niro), who, along with his partner Nicky Santoro (Pesci) manage a successful Vegas enterprise while dealing with conflict and facing down scammers and hand-shaking high rollers. As the story goes on, Rothstein’s own past and ways, as well has his greed, slowly begins to catch up with him.

Casino isn’t as quotable as Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, but what it lacks in those films’ sharpness, it makes up for with a complex and layered plot that never seems to go too far off the rails, hanging on just enough to remain entertaining without becoming convoluted. The film goes into technical and business aspects of a Vegas casino as well, some of which are creepy and some are just plain amazing. Scorsese's’ direction is spot-on, too.

Directorially, scenes flow together in a near-seamless fashion despite being often separated by months or years. The narrative sort of moves in rhythm to the flow of the scenes, overlapping then resolving in a somewhat unconventional way. Over time we see the disintegration of these characters, proving once-and-for-all that gambling is a dirty business, so who better to show us its dark side than the man who does it best?

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 8 - Jackie Brown (1997)

2015-02-18T12:32:00.001-08:00

Jackie Brown (1997; Miramax)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino based on the novel by Elmore Leonard

Starring: Pam Grier, Robert Forster, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert De Niro,

Tarantino is a master at crafting complex stories with a large cast of characters and interweaving stories and in 1997, he would direct one of his best films. Jackie Brown is both a throwback to 70’s Blaxploitation and the complex filmmaking styles of classic directors like Akira Kurosawa and Fritz Lang.

The interweaving plot follows a flight attendant named Jackie Brown who is drawn into a smuggling scam by a local weapons dealer and is then turned by a cop who becomes oddly enamoured with her. Throughout the film, Jackie is constantly playing both sides (ala Yojimbo). On one end, you have a tired, veteran cop who is sick of always doing the right thing. Then, on the opposite side you have a disturbed arms dealer (Jackson) who is working out a sale to a sleazy thug (De Niro), whom Jackie is running money for by smuggling it through her flights. Ultimately, the film focuses on a plan executed masterfully by the titular heroine to break out of the cycle in which she has found herself trapped.

Our lead character’s plan is reminiscent of Yojimbo, and the final act of Jackie Brown is a call back to another Kurosawa classic: Rashomon. The scene is played out multiple times, once for each character’s perspective, until we have seen the big scam unfold from all angles. Somehow, Tarantino reveals this over and over yet each time we see it we learn something new about what is happening. This film is worth seeing just for the third act, which is a captivatingly-complex series of events.

Jackie Brown is a darkly comical and deeply intricate story filled with references to exploitation and b-cinema. The film’s very title is a throwback to the 1974 film Foxy Brown, which also starred a lovely Pam Grier. The mood, atmosphere and sudden moments of shocking violence seemingly out of the blue are distinctly “Tarantino” and this movie has one trait that is astonishingly rare: There is almost no exposition… at all. Outside of the occasional reference to an association or what someone does, nothing is spelled out for the audience. Rather, we see a very self-contained story play out as a visual narrative. It is a great accomplishment in storytelling through film.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 9 - Quiz Show (1994)

2015-02-17T13:39:00.000-08:00


Quiz Show (1994; Hollywood Pictures)

Director: Robert Redford

Writer: Paul Attanasio based the book by Richard N. Goodwin

Starring: John Turturro, Ralph Fiennes, Rob Morrow, David Paymer, Hank Azaria

In November of 1959, wealthy heir and university professor Charles Van Doren approached a House Committee in Congress and confessed to his complicity in a series of deceptive acts involving the super-hit NBC trivia game show “Twenty-One”. It was a long-brewing and highly televised controversy that brought to light the deception of Hollywood and the way the entertainment industry is more than willing to deceive millions for ratings, a fact we simply take for granted these days. The controversy began when a former superstar contestant, Herb Stempel, confessed to investigators at the House Committee on Legislative Oversight that he was asked by the popular show’s producers to lose to Van Doren. In retaliation, he began to pursue aggressive legal action and took steps to expose the deception, not necessarily out of the desire to bring the show’s practices to light, rather it was to do harm to those he felt wronged him, Van Doren in-particular. Envy and bitterness consumed him.

All of this actually happened, and has gone down as one of the most infamous controversies in Hollywood history, and it was all chronicled masterfully in Richard N. Goodwin’s captivating examination. In spite of the book’s success at the time, by 1994, most of America had forgotten about the events surrounding Twenty-One, with nearly forty years of powerful events separating and drowning out this seemingly-”trivial” (pardon the pun) federal case. Leave it to The Sundance Kid and an unknown screenwriter to bring the events to life for a whole new generation in the most fascinating form imaginable.

Quiz Show is a masterwork of procedural storytelling. As the events play out, it all feels too real. The performances are outstanding, bringing these long-forgotten individuals back to life. John Turturro, still in his prime, and Ralph Fiennes masterfully recreate the show’s embattled contestants, B-list actor Rob Morrow’s performance as a House Investigator ties the story together, and Paymer and Azaria’s sleezy producers are detestable to the extent that you can’t look away. There is not a boring moment in this movie. In spite of a seemingly-dull premise, Quiz Show is a gripping portal into the lives and mentalities of a few TV semi-celebrities whose legacies would be forever tainted by their decisions to embrace greed and fame over their own intellectual integrity.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 10 - Clerks (1994)

2015-02-15T21:33:00.000-08:00

Clerks (1994; Miramax)

Director: Kevin Smith

Writer: Kevin Smith

Starring: Brian O’Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Marilyn Ghigliotti, Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith

In the early months of 1994, a young independent filmmaker named Kevin Smith would release Clerks, a massively influential black and white Generation-X film centering on the employees of neighboring convenience and video stores. The worn-down and entirely passive Dante struggles with his boss, his personal life, his distrust of just about everyone and a slew of bizarre and unstable customers. Jay, on the other hand, is cynical, bitter and entirely disinterested in just about everything, especially his customers.

Clerks is a portrait of the early 90’s. It captures the cynicism, the uncertainty and the narcissism of the young working class while reflecting a period in time where the music was great, the attitudes were bad and the film industry essentially abandoned the idea of a good comedy. Keep in mind that, just months after the release of this excellent low-budget movie, Hollywood would release a $40-million disaster called North. This film is one of my all-time most hated movies and it tanked; I mean, it bombed bad. Clerks, with around a $350k budget, grossed just over $3 million (while never getting a wide release; only being shown on just over 50 screens) but not only was it better, but most people forgot about North before its home video release (everyone except me it seems) while Clerks spawned a massive cult following, an excellent animated series and a list of other films from the writing talent of Kevin Smith including the excellent Chasing Amy and the lesser (but still hilarious) Mallrats.

Pinning down an overall plot for Clerks is hard. The film is told in vignettes separated by title cards with simple titles reflecting the tone or theme of the preceding scene. While the overarching but simple story of the day in the life of an employee forced to work on his day off plays out, there are a lot of subplots and character moments that range from the slightly eccentric to the absurdly mad. Outside the Quick Stop are two more working men, dealers Jay and Silent Bob, creations of Smith who would become omnipresent supporting characters in almost all of his films. Bob stands coolly while Jay dances hits on female pedestrians, and acts boorish to the point of being rather likable.

There is not one scene in Clerks that isn’t funny. What’s better is Clerks is not tied down by many of the tropes that so often handicap the comedy genre… Smith was saving a lot of those for Clerks II.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 11 - The Sixth Sense (1999)

2015-02-15T12:44:00.000-08:00


The Sixth Sense (1999; Hollywood Pictures)

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Writer: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring: Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment, Toni Collette

I just do not get Shyamalan. He had a great start. Wide Awake was corny and sort of Hallmark-Channel-Original-ly, but it had a childlike outlook on ideas of religion, skepticism and mortality that was simultaneously tragic and charming. After Wide Awake (which wasn’t his first film project, but still…), he created what rates high on most film fans’ list of the greatest films of the 90’s. The Sixth Sense was an astounding accomplishment in filmmaking. Forgetting the “trademark” Shyamalan Twist for a moment it was just a great film all around. Osment left a huge impression on the audience here, with a performance so good that the audience’s fear reflected his own. To add to that he was entirely sympathetic. For many years, the tale of the child with supernatural connections has been handled with the kid either being enigmatic or creepy, or was simply sage like and wiser than just about any other character. In a few cases, they were also “okay” with the presence of the supernatural, never understanding what the big deal is. Cole (Osment) is terrified of just about everything, and it shows. It permeates every scene. He is always pensive entering a room, always looks down to avoid seeing anything scary, and almost never makes eye contact. It’s subtle characterization you rarely see in modern movies.

The very simple story revolves around a child psychologist named Malcom Crowe (Willis) troubled by a case that went horribly wrong who meets his new patient Cole Sear. Everything seems to be falling apart in Crowe’s life. His wife is distant and nobody seems to care that he’s there, nobody except Cole, that is, who suffers from the baleful ability to see ghosts. There is a strange connection between the two characters that is sudden and, at first, inexplicable. As the story moves along, Cole is helped by Crowe to overcome his fear and begins to find meaning in what he once considered his curse.

There aren’t many movies like The Sixth Sense, at least not anything of quality released after 1980. It is a straightforward story with few characters told well through great performances. It has no villain, no pointless subplots, no focus on any characters except the two leads and their interactions with those around them and no freaking comic relief. We have a story that reveals itself quickly but steadily, with almost no exposition, with all emotions conveyed through the actor’s faces. There are actually scenes with little to no dialogue at all, where we just experience the world as Cole does. It’s truly astonishing how well this tale is told.

So what happened? Shyamalan has shown a steady decline in quality over the last decade and a half. The subtlety and sincerity of The Sixth Sense is all but gone, with actors forcing emotion, over-or-underacting or being just plain silly. It’s the curse of the great filmmaker, really. If you release your Magnum Opus too soon, you will never be able to make another “good movie” again because all of the other films you release will be compared to the one that made your career.

My 40 Faovirte Films of the 90's - 12 - The Usual Suspects (1995)

2015-02-14T14:35:00.002-08:00

The Usual Suspects; 1995,
Polygram Filmed Entertainment

Director: Bryan Singer

Writer: Christopher McQuarrie

Starring: Gabriel Byrne, Benicio Del Toro, Kevin Pollak, Stephen Baldwin, Chazz Palminteri, Kevin Spacey

I’m not usually a huge fan of ensemble films. They are often pretty bad. To me they always harken back to the likes of North or the Ocean’s Eleven sequels (the first one wasn’t really all that bad). The movies are selling themselves on their cast alone, with little effort in the actual script or direction. There are always exceptions to this rule, however as we will see in a few entries. That brings us to the Usual Suspects. For audiences today, this is a major cast, but in the mid-90’s… Well, many of these guys were known but were not huge stars. The biggest gets in this movie by far were Gabriel Byrne and Chazz Palminteri, who were already well-regarded and praised actors at the time and they sort of held the unofficial position of being the main draw for audiences. This was also only the second feature directed by soon-to-be X-Men director, Bryan Singer.

The Usual Suspects just may be the best heist movie of all time. If it isn’t THE best, it’s up there. This movie has a great cast of characters you believe were career criminals. They knew the drill and it showed. They were cynical, untrusting and just aggressive as Hell to everyone, especially each other. They were brought together to pull a major job as commissioned by the enigmatic Kaiser Sousse, a shadowy figure that is often the subject of thieves’ lore. The entire movie is told in flashback as a mentally challenged man named Verbal (Spacey) conveys the tale of a heist gone really, really bad to the impatient Det. Kujan (Palminteri). He tells the story of the characters, who they were, how they were brought together by the mysterious Sousse and how the job became a total disaster.

This is a damn-smart movie. The film scored an Oscar for McQuarrie’s clever, fast and naturalistic screenplay and he deserved it. He was a regular collaborator with Bryan Singer in the 90’s but sort of fell off the earth for nearly a decade. He’s made a comeback in recent years, though. He wrote/co-wrote a few would-be Hollywood epics like the box-office bomb Valkyrie and another Tom Cruise-headed flop The Edge of Tomorrow. This is sad because, judging by The Usual Suspects, he is a damn-good writer. The foul-mouthed, quippy and aggressive screenplay to Suspects really highlights the ideas of the 90’s, which were influenced heavily by Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino, and drew from the grim attitude and gritty action of police films of the 70’s and 80’s like The French Connection and Prince of the City. These influences in the 90’s led to a pretty solid series of b-grade actioners and high-quality independent films like this one. If you like action, heists and a brilliant script, you will like The Usual Suspects.

My 40 Favorite Films of the 90's - 13 - Being John Malkovich (1999)

2015-02-14T13:58:00.000-08:00

Being John Malkovich; 1999, Gramercy Pictures

Director: Spike Jonze

Writers: Charlie Kaufman

Starring: John Malkovich, John Cusack, Cameron Diaz

I adore the occasional quirky, energetic and strangely eccentric film, and therefore I love Being John Malkovich. It is directed by one of my favorite directors of the last twenty years, written by one of my favorite screenwriters of the last twenty years and co-stars John Malkovich, one of my favorite actors, period. It’s a perfect collection of amazing performances, a strange and funny premise and a directorial style that fits perfectly.

The premise follows a lowly puppeteer named Craig (Cusack) who stumbles upon a hidden door in a strange office building that leads into the mind of another person. He can see through their eyes and can even obtain a certain influence. After a short time he discovers he is occupying the mind of none other than actor John Malkovich (as himself). He introduces his wife to the experiment and they both become obsessed and rather rejuvenated by the power.

This movie is NOT for everybody. It is very offbeat, written with that trademark “Kaufman” style and features the soft-spoken charm that is often associated with Jonze’s direction. Many film fans like myself have been following Jonze very closely for years, and while many have HEARD of his movies, I don’t think he has really began capturing a mainstream audience until his recent film, the awesome Her, which he also wrote. However, if you like strange, funny and somewhat twisted movies, this is an awesome find if you haven’t seen it.

If I had to pick a favorite scene, those who saw it would remember the moment when Malkovich finds out that people are actually entering his mind (I will not disclose the explanation for this) and decides to take action. The results are both hilarious and somewhat terrifying, especially if you put yourself in Malkovich’s shoes. Check this one out as it really is a brilliantly-clever, albeit bizarre film creation.