"Psycho" and "Back to the Future" - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Ironically, the movie has roots in my favorite movie of 1980: Used Cars. Both Used Cars and BTTF have Robert Zemeckis as the Director; Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale("The Two Bobs") as the screenwriters; and Steven Spielberg as the Executive Producer(though I think in the beginning, Spielberg took his name OFF of the somewhat offensive Used Cars; its back on now.)

How could the makers of the movie that REALLY grabbed me in 1980(yet made no big money) end up making the movie that only sort of entertained me in 1985(while making the biggest money of the year?) Well, that's show biz.

I think what's key is that "Back to the Future" is, by and large, "family entertainment" whose main audience is likely...kids. The characters in the R-rated "Used Cars" swear and have sex and lie and cheat and connive; everybody in BTTF save "Bully Biff and his Gang" are very nice people.

Indeed, the history on BTTF is that most studios turned it down and told Zemeckis "you should take this to Disney." (This was the "on its last legs" Disney Studios of the early 80's, that wasn't really making major movies anymore.) Evidently Zemeckis DID take it to Disney and was told that the plot line about Marty's teenage mother falling in love with him was too "creepy" for a Disney movie.

And hey, that creeped ME out too...the whole thing about the teenage version of Marty's mother(Lea Thompson) falling in love with him...and thus threatening to erase Marty from life if she doesn't marry his teenage father(after time.)

Note in passing: Marty's mother as a teenager is "Lorraine Bates" so we can figure maybe there's a LITTLE Psycho homage going on here. (After all, both Psycho and BTTF share the topic of a boy getting too close to his mother.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"The Two Bobs" had been floating in Spielberg's generous orbit for some time by the time Back to the Future was released in 1985. They had written "I Want to Hold Your Hand" about crazed kids in search of the Beatles in NYC; they had written the infamous Spielberg semi-flop "1941"(now somewhat rehabilitated at least for its epic effects action, if not its comedy)and Spielberg had sponsored the very funny, very ribald "Used Cars."

But none of those films had done much to REALLY get the Two Bobs a foothold in Hollywood. Nope it was Back to the Future that zoomed into the stratosphere and "made" "The Two Bobs" (well, one of them -- Robert Zemeckis eventually went his own way, with Roger Rabbit and Forest Gump and directorial superstardom less auteuristic worship.)

BTTF ends up sharing this with Psycho as well: sequels. Two of them, each of which in a certain way blitzed the simple qualities and BTTF in favor of overkill(BTTF 2, which zooms from 1985 to...2015...which we have now already lived though) and rather irrelevant side-tracking (the Old West inspired BTTF 3...where'd that go? 1885?) You could see the overkill with each poster: only Michael J. Fox is in the first poster; Fox and Lloyd are in the second poster; Fox, Lloyd and Mary Steenburgen(what's SHE doing here?) is in the third poster. And frankly, as with "Psycho," the sequels simply weren't up to the value of the first.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Indeed, thanks to the sequels, and a little internet reading, and a re-viewing of the film the other night, I guess you could say that "Back to the Future" is very rehabilitated in my eyes.

First of all , I read something that said the screenplay of " Back to the Future" has been honored and studied someplace important(a university?) as "one of the best constructed screenplays of all time." Well, yes and no. Because of the time travel "rules" the film has a certain strong internal logic (like how McFly family members start fading out of photos as it becomes less likely that their parents will meet and marry to make them). But in some ways, the set-ups are too obvious. Example: Bully Biff in 1985 bullies daddy McFly about writing his work reports for him in the same language that Bully Biff in 1955 bullies daddy McFly about writing his homework for him.

That said, things really do get intricate. Lots of good plotting in the first "shopping mall time machine test sequence" and lots of payoff at the end of the story -- Marty by going back in time, not only made sure his parents got together, he made sure Daddy McFly beat up Bully Biff and changed history for the BETTER.

And this: I must admit that the big finale , with Doc Brown desperately trying to connect cables to capture lighting to make Marty's time machine car travel in time ....is a master class in suspense, Hitchcock-style, with every possible obstacle and frustration being thrown at both Marty and Doc Brown to NOT allow the time machine to do its thing and send Marty "back to the future."

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And, of course, this: I like Back to the Future more now because of course...it makes me nostalgic for 1985! The older you get, the more you see that the great fascinating unknown of life IS the passage of time. Consider Back to the Future in 1985: the rather "ancient" 1955 was 30 years back. What's 30 years back as I post this? 1989 and Burton's Batman. Doesn't seem all THAT different does it?

And 2015 (BTTF 2) was "way in the future." Until it was not. We've lived through 2015 now, and many an article in 2015 looked to see if BTTF 2 "got it right": Flying skateboards? NO. Who won the World Series? YES.

But I find it rather pleasing that I can flash back to that 1985 Friday night I saw "Back to the Future" and had late dinner at an open air deck summer restaurant. It all comes back and the feeling's good. I don't/can't have that memory about seeing "Psycho" on the night of ITS debut. So I'll have to take "Back to the Future" instead.

I suppose I'm "forcing the marriage" of Psycho and BTTF but not really if you note that long-ago VHS that paired the two movies, along with Animal House as "Universal blockbusters." These are among the movies of our lives and they share three things: (1) They were modest; (2) they were surprise summer blockbusters and (3) they were all good enough to stand the test of time.

Time.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

And this: I must admit that the big finale , with Doc Brown desperately trying to connect cables to capture lighting to make Marty's time machine car travel in time ....is a master class in suspense, Hitchcock-style, with every possible obstacle and frustration being thrown at both Marty and Doc Brown to NOT allow the time machine to do its thing and send Marty "back to the future."

All that stuff is utterly fantastic. The very ending of the film was sensational too: Doc arrives back from the further future with a much improved De Lorean with the news that something has to be done about Marty's and Jennifer's *Kids*. 'Where we're going, we don't need roads' & the De Lorean blasts off, loops back over and through the trees like the Millennium Falcon then crashes through the screen. Whole audience whoops, stands up & cheers. Genius. One of the pinnacles of what the '80s were best at:big, broad entertainments.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Where we're going, we don't need roads' & the De Lorean blasts off, loops back over and through the trees like the Millennium Falcon then crashes through the screen. Whole audience whoops, stands up & cheers. Genius. One of the pinnacles of what the '80s were best at:big, broad entertainments.

--

You know, its almost like I "forgot" this big capper to the movie -- and yet, right now, I DO remember the whooping, standing up and cheering and the "To Be Continued"....which it was, but in some ways the actual SEEING of 2015(in the 1989 sequel) took away from the imagination of this big finish.

I suppose my resistance to the family stuff all around this big capper is why I didn't quite respond to it at the time beyond saying "what a great ending." (Which I did say, with a smile on my face, even in 1985.)

Much of this thread -- given our flexibility here at the "Psycho" board -- is to "re-explore" Back to the Future not only as a classic(yes, it is), but as an EIGHTIES classic...its part of that entire Spielberg/Lucas 80's thing that included(in Spielberg's stable of directors), Robert Zemeckis and Joe Dante as "directorial proteges."

Indeed, in 1985, Spielberg had Zemeckis direct "Back to the Future"; Dante direct "Gremlins" -- while Spielberg took on the heavy non-genre, dramatic Oscar-bait lifting of "The Color Purple." It was all of a plan, and it worked, pretty much (though Spielberg would have to wait awhile for that "serious" first Best Director Oscar, all the way to 1993 and Schindler's List.)

And Psycho isn't entirely OFF point here, either. Both Psycho and Back to the Future had "major genre directors" names attached(Hitchcock and Spielberg) and yet seemed "smaller than their usual stuff," more modest. Nonetheless and likely because of Hitchcock and Spielberg's personal oversight -- these "little movies' became the hits of summer and of their years.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

but in some ways the actual SEEING of 2015(in the 1989 sequel) took away from the imagination of this big finish.

Yep. I quite enjoyed the sequels but they're big steps down from the first film, and the problems start early in 2: all of the convergence in 2015 back to roles & patterns of behavior from 1955 in 2015 (e.g., Marty's son is menaced by Biff's grand-son) was both implausible & depressing; Jennifer - recast! - is brought forward to 2015 to supposedly help with kid-problems then promptly spends almost the whole movie asleep; the kid-problems in 2015 are all plot-mechanical & perfunctory in nature, rather than linked with, e.g., how the kids from the future would condescend to & misunderstand the '80s in some way, or how key '80s trends might have blown up out of control by 2015.

The germs of these sequel weaknesses are in minor sleights of hand in the first film: When Marty returns to 1985 at the end of 1 much has changed, his parents and siblings are all much more confident & successful. Yet so much has implausibly stayed the same: they all still live together in the same house (the family would plausibly have moved to a better neighborhood, bigger house), and Marty, our POV is completely unchanged, as is Jennifer and their relationship (when they'd probably never have met now). These sleights of hand were needed for the comedy & triumph at the end of 1 to work, but they then set the template for all of the weird and depressing convergence in 2's 2015 (why is everyone still living in Hill Valley? and so on).

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Spielberg had Zemeckis direct "Back to the Future"; Dante direct "Gremlins"

I hadn't put this together before but, yes, Gremlins and BTTF and their sequels are twinned as follows:

* Gremlins has an extended wicked It's a Wonderful Life homage
* BTTF 2's 1985 revisited is a dark version modeled on the nightmare/good time Bedford Falls from IAWL
* BTTF 2's dark 1985 is presided over by a grotesque but super-successful Biff Tannen modeled on mid-'80s Donald Trump
* Gremlins 2 is set in NYC presided over by a loudmouth real estate developer/supposed author, Daniel Clamp, basically '80s Trump again. The Gremlins destroy much of Clamp Center.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Well, there you go...some real themes there. Interesting how someone we "took for granted" in one era(say, Reagan in the fifties; Trump in the 80s) suddenly became VERY important about 30 years later!

I have to say of the "Spielberg protégé films" I preferred Back to the Future to Gremlins(the originals in both cases.) There was something "cutesy but sick" about Gremlins that didn't appeal to me.

But this: by 1985, I was already, really "too old for this product." The coming of Spielberg and Lucas in the 80s(at least on the producer side for Spielberg) really WAS "the second coming of Disney" -- for kids, pre-teens. I wasn't the target audience.

On the other hand, we adults -- whatever the decade -- never fully grow up.

Note in passing: my favorite movie of 1985 wasn't Back to the Future. It was Silverado -- the "cleaned-up Western" written and directed by yet ANOTHER Spielberg/Lucas protégé -- Lawrence Kasdan. I do recall Joe Don Baker -- the famous villain "Molly" from Charley Varrick -- taking the time in an interview in 1985 to call "Silverado" -- "Yuppies Go West," and that's about right. Its the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" of Westerns, with folks like Jeff Goldblum, John Cleese and Linda Hunt aboard for class. (The Magnficent Four were "tough enough": Kevin Kline, Scott Glenn, Danny Glover, and newbie Kevin Costner.) Great villain in Brian Dennehy -- "the big guy of the 80's" too. Great script.

In fact, reviewing things now, the Spielberg/Lucas machine got four of my 80's favorites of the year:

1980: Used Cars
1981: Raiders
1982: ET
1985: Silverado

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

But none of those films had done much to REALLY get the Two Bobs a foothold in Hollywood. Nope it was Back to the Future that zoomed into the stratosphere and "made" "The Two Bobs"

Wasn't Zemeckis (directing only & without Spielberg's imprimatur) pretty much set in Hollywood after Romancing The Stone (1984)? I remember dismissing it sight unseen as 'Indy Light' back in 1984, but when I saw it later on TV I was quite impressed. It had more rom-com chops than Indy or certainly Temple of Doom did, Turner & Douglas had real chemistry, and the action was wittily edited. It was easy to see why it had become a big hit: it was a good date movie as well as a fun Spielberg-Lucas action-adventure. In general, I like Zemeckis's pre-Gump stuff a lot more than I do Gump & after (although I liked Castaway a lot).

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Wasn't Zemeckis (directing only & without Spielberg's imprimatur) pretty much set in Hollywood after Romancing The Stone (1984)

---

Yes...that was a key stepping stone, and comes between "Used Cars" and "Back to the Future" (right BEFORE Back to the Future, which I think helped the Two Bobs finally sell the script.

But I guess I'm saying that if (as I've read) Back to the Future was the BIGGEST hit of 1985 (Romancing the Stone was hardly the biggest hit of 1984) --- AND was from an "official" Two Bobs script -- THAT's the one that fully launched Zemeckis(alas, perhaps, "under the wing of Spielberg" after his freedom with Romancing the Stone.)

---

I remember dismissing it sight unseen as 'Indy Light' back in 1984,

---

It kinda was -- it came out a few months ahead of "Temple of Doom" and felt much "smaller" -- but charming it was, and Michael Douglas here got a "launch" of his own -- finally abandoning the "mild guy" roles and taking on his father Kirk's macho mantle -- but his way.

---

but when I saw it later on TV I was quite impressed. It had more rom-com chops than Indy or certainly Temple of Doom did,

---

It was written by a woman, and designed to center ON a woman: Kathleen Turner's romance writer. Here was Turner's chance to play warm and funny after those cold femme fatales and she killed it. Sadly , the woman who wrote it died soon thereafter, in a car crash on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu -- the ocean highway of the stars.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Turner & Douglas had real chemistry, and the action was wittily edited. It was easy to see why it had become a big hit: it was a good date movie as well as a fun Spielberg-Lucas action-adventure.

--

I really loved it.

And here's what I REALLY loved: Alan Silvestri's score and main theme -- which was wildly romantic, exciting, and sad all at the same time. And ESPECIALLY romantic at the end, when Douglas reappears in Turner's life in NYC.

Weirdly, later in 1986, Silvestri scored a more brutal thriller with Richard Gere and Kim Basinger called "No Mercy"(New Orleans bayou gangster killers) and I noticed: it was the same "Stone" score, except slowed down and made more menacing. A revelation.

Funny: I have read in the trivia on BTTF that Spielberg "wasn't impressed" with Silvestri's Stone score, and almost didn't allow Silvestri to score BTTF. But he relented, and we ended up with some very famous and exciting musical cues for the various drives of the DeLorean time machine.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

In general, I like Zemeckis's pre-Gump stuff a lot more than I do Gump & after (although I liked Castaway a lot.)

--

Well, he got "big for his britches." Not TOO big. Just big.

I recall he had an actress wife of some attractiveness who was either in his films (she's Turner's kidnapped sister in Stone) or Spielberg films. I would always joke when she appeared: "There's Zemeckis' wife!" But he divorced her to marry some younger hottie. I hope she's very rich.

I'm suggesting that the change in Zemeckis films might reflect the change in Zemeckis wives. And he long ago dropped "The Other Bob."

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

It was written by a woman, and designed to center ON a woman: Kathleen Turner's romance writer. Here was Turner's chance to play warm and funny after those cold femme fatales and she killed it. Sadly , the woman who wrote it died soon thereafter, in a car crash on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu -- the ocean highway of the stars.

Argh, that's too bad about Diane Thomas. Quite a few burgeoning Hollywood careers have been cut short by crashes on that road (or at least on the whole coast road from S. Monica up to S. Barbara).

BTW, I've never seen Used Cars so I'll be plugging that gap this week! I don't think I'll ever bother plugging my *later* Zemeckis gaps. He did a whole bunch of poorly-received animation/motion capture films (Polar Express, Beowulf,...) that I've often ended up catching a few minutes of on TV only to be really repulsed by their basic looks & vibes.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Argh, that's too bad about Diane Thomas. Quite a few burgeoning Hollywood careers have been cut short by crashes on that road (or at least on the whole coast road from S. Monica up to S. Barbara).

---

It can be a dangerous road. Didn't one of those Jenners or Karadashians kill someone on it fairly recently?(Excused accident.)

Also I believe that the director of A Christmas Story got killed on that road.

---

BTW, I've never seen Used Cars so I'll be plugging that gap this week!

---

W'ell...this one's definitely an acquired taste and a "guilty pleasure" and I'm not sure you're going to like it. Some thoughts:

ONE: I went in to see it at the theater with buddies in the summer of 1980 with low expectations. This was the comedy summer of "Airplane," "Caddyshack," "The Blues Brothers" and a comedy starring Kurt Russell, Gerritt Graham and Frank MacRae wasn't looking like a very big deal at all (despite veteran Jack Warden appearing as "the Fuchs Brothers." ) So there was the element of surprise. We were laughing hard pretty early and often -- though the film devolves down to a rather silly big action climax(after so much nasty humor) that has the hand of Spielberg on it.

TWO: When the movie hit HBO in 1981, I actually had a watching party for both those of us who saw it and newbies. It got big laughs THERE.

So..."this one is personal," and those two big screenings(the theater, the watching party) are really why its my favorite...this in the year of The Shining(great but disappointing at the end) and The Empire Strikes Back(my first experience with a "movie that's really a chapter" -- and I didn't like that feeling of incompleteness.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

THREE: Objectively, I've seen "Used Cars" quite a few times and the forthright ribald nastiness of the film is quite funny to me. There are about four scenes that I think are comedy classics, and Frank MacRae(now dead too young) was a real comic find of the time.

But...that was then and this is now. Take Used Cars in the spirit it was released, swanstep...a sleeper (and better IMHO than Airplane, The Blues Brothers, and Caddyshack...and I thought so in 1980.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I don't think I'll ever bother plugging my *later* Zemeckis gaps. He did a whole bunch of poorly-received animation/motion capture films (Polar Express, Beowulf,...) that I've often ended up catching a few minutes of on TV only to be really repulsed by their basic looks & vibes.

---

I had a weird experience with "The Polar Express." I saw it at a late showing in IMAX and 3-D, and it goes right up there as being the BEST 3-D movie I've ever seen in terms of dizzying effects. One sequence in which a valuable paper ticket flies alongside, under, and through the hurtling train, then over a bridge, down a waterfall etc....was literal roller coaster ride to me and there are other such 3-D sequences.

So I loved that part. But I was also taken by the "dead of night, dusk to almost dawn" setting of the story(always a weird emotional time) and the rather eerie ambiance of the thing...including an ending where our kid heroes make their way through an empty, lonely industrial plant version of the North Pole as Christmas songs float around in the far, far distance.

In short, I found The Polar Express to be a 3-D roller coaster ride AND what of the most eerie movies I've ever experienced. I give it THAT. (With good ol' Tom Hanks in cartoon form playing about 10 characters, including Santa.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Speaking of Tom Hanks: Forrest Gump. That movie that seems to have "robbed" Pulp Fiction of the 1994 Best Picture Oscar and yet was a giant blockbuster that year, rather unbeatable going in on general princples of "Academy taste meeting public taste." I remember when I saw it I felt "Too bad Hanks won last year for Philadelphia, this is his new trademark role." And then he won again. Even the Academy saw that.

Forrest Gump was a "tour of the Baby Boomer years, from the 50's to the 80's, with soundtrack attached." THAT made it a hit. It was a mega-tearjerker. THAT made it a hit. Forrest Gump was a naif, but a tough guy who beat up guys who bothered his Jenny. THAT made it a hit(imagine: Tom Hanks was here playing a TOUGH GUY.) Forrest suffered unrequited love for the entire movie, and then got her, and then lost her. THAT made it a hit. And much more. (The entire Lt. Dan story arc was moving.)It was hardly a formula movie-- that long jogging sequence near the end was weird, art house stuff.

I liked Pulp Fiction, and I liked Forrest Gump. And I liked The Shawshank Redemption(85% torture for a 15% happy ending payoff.) And I liked Ed Wood(Burton's best? Depp's best!) And I liked True Lies(Arnold's last movie as a true superstar, because: James Cameron.) I liked 1994, period.

My favorite scene in Forrest Gump -- probably the one that won Hanks the Oscar - is when he visits Jenny near the end and realizes that the little boy watching TV is his son. Hanks acting. Incredible. Not a dry eye in the house. And there is another woman in the scene -- The Famous Mrs. Zemeckis. And the little boy would be in The Sixth Sense five big years(in a child's life) later.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

In the CNN series "The Movies," in the episode "The Eighties," Tom Hanks contends that Zemeckis' "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" is the most complicated technical achievement ever undertaken -- pre-CGI making everything fit for the cartoon inserts. That's Zemeckis, too. Too bad its such an obnoxious, loud, un-charming movie in the playing. For kids OR adults.

So, me and Zemeckis. Used Cars, Romancing the Stone(for the story, the characters and above all, the score), Back to the Future(with reservations about the characters) Forrest Gump(I love it, I'm OK with that) and the thrilling/spooky experience of The Polar Express in IMAX 3-D. I think those are my favorites of his. (Zemeckis is all over the CNN "Movies" series, btw, along with Paul Thomas Anderson and the other directors I 'm named.)

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

I avoided Gump at the time. It looked like the sort of nostalgic, ultra-mainstream, ultra-sentimental stuff that's just not my cup of tea. Americans, for some reason, *love* the idea of a simpleton who has all the answers, *love* the idea of child-like wisdom and are skeptical of expertise, *love* to believe that lots of stuff that's *actually* incredibly complex is very simple if only we'd embrace the wisdom of kindergartners and rural folk.... Gump looked like the apotheosis of this whole side of the American Psyche hence I stayed well away. I've come around a bit since then.... acting and technicals are great and I guess I understand the broader national-level myth-making that Gump engages in a bit better than I did. I found this recent video from a good youtube channel, The Take, to be very helpful and clarifying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Aactzo5myg

1994 was an *incredibly* diverse movie year, something for everybody. You had stuff like The Lion King and Dumb & Dumber that were masterpieces if they were your sort of thing, Crumb and Hoop Dreams were 'best ever docs' if you wanted that. There was Speed and Leon-The Professional for action-junkies, 4 weddings and Muriel's Wedding for rom com-ers, solid period work from Little Women & Legends of the Fall & Quiz Show, dark masterpieces from Canada and NZ (Exotica, Once Were Warriors, Heavenly Creatures), noirs like Shallow Grave & Last Seduction, and so on through unclassifiables like Clerks, Natural Born Killers, Spanking The Monkey, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Red, Eat Drink Man Woman, Vanya on 42nd St, Barcelona, Chungking Express... and much more. Almost every week saw something pretty fascinating & quite high quality arrive in cinemas. Pulp Fiction & its soundtrack may have ruled the year but movies generally made a lot of people happy in 1994.

It's almost impossible to imagine a year now where movies would feel & be so central to all of culture. TV alone occupies too much mindspace to allow that to happen now (notwithstanding that two of the big beasts of '90s Must-See-TV culture, Friends & E.R, arrived in Sept 1994, and both Seinfeld & X-files were hitting their strides by then).

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I avoided Gump at the time.

---

Seemed to be the case for a lot of folks. And as the Oscars loomed up , the press enjoyed the "dogfight" of the sweet studio behemoth Forrest Gump versus the sassy and profane indie epic Pulp Fiction. QT, taking the stage to get his Best Original Screenplay Oscar, quipped, "since I think this will be my last time up here tonight, I want to make sure to thank everybody."

Indeed, Forrest Gump WAS a studio behemoth, but it had taken the requisite decade to see the light of day, and different stars attached(John Travolta, Bill Murray.) But it WAS a good movie, it DID have an epic sweep to it, and it certainly didn't have a happy ending(Forrest FINALLY gets Jenny to agree to marry him, but she only does so because she knows she's dying and they have a child together.)

---

It looked like the sort of nostalgic, ultra-mainstream, ultra-sentimental stuff that's just not my cup of tea.

---

I think a tougher movie was "hidden" beneath the sap. Someone called it "four funerals and a wedding." A lot of characters die, and Lt. Dan is maimed for life.

Plus I always like to note that Tom Hanks has never played a TOUGHER man. He beats the crap out of a couple of guys. It looked to me like he took some weight training for the role. Even his mob hit man in "Road to Perdition" wasn't this mean when pushed.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

1994 was an *incredibly* diverse movie year, something for everybody.

---

There is a book out this year on the stands called something like "1999: The Best Movie Year of the Nineties," and I had to disagree, thumbing through it.

I think that 1994 and 1997 are about tied in that regard. But everyone has different tastes. That said, when I write about the "wasteland" we are currently in for entertainment movies, all I have to think about is 1994 or 1997 and I can remember a time where there was something pretty good almost every week. (In 1994, that was Forrest Gump andTrue Lies and Face/Off in summer, Ed Wood and Pulp Fiction in fall...etc.)

---

You had stuff like The Lion King and Dumb & Dumber that were masterpieces if they were your sort of thing, Crumb and Hoop Dreams were 'best ever docs' if you wanted that.

---

Yes to all...though even as an older guy, I didn't find The Lion King to be all that; Elton's songs were rather dull (except did he write "Makuni Hatata" or whatever?)

--

There was Speed and Leon-The Professional for action-junkies, 4 weddings and Muriel's Wedding for rom com-ers, solid period work from Little Women & Legends of the Fall & Quiz Show, dark masterpieces from Canada and NZ (Exotica, Once Were Warriors, Heavenly Creatures), noirs like Shallow Grave & Last Seduction, and so on through unclassifiables like Clerks, Natural Born Killers, Spanking The Monkey, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Red, Eat Drink Man Woman, Vanya on 42nd St, Barcelona, Chungking Express... and much more. Almost every week saw something pretty fascinating & quite high quality arrive in cinemas. Pulp Fiction & its soundtrack may have ruled the year but movies generally made a lot of people happy in 1994.

--

Amazingly, I think I saw everything you noted up there except the final four.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It's almost impossible to imagine a year now where movies would feel & be so central to all of culture. TV alone occupies too much mindspace to allow that to happen now (notwithstanding that two of the big beasts of '90s Must-See-TV culture, Friends & E.R, arrived in Sept 1994, and both Seinfeld & X-files were hitting their strides by then).

---

I guess TV hadn't yet begun its total splintering into hundreds of choices. I remember 1994 well, and warmly.

It took me awhile to "find" Seinfeld, but I thought it was the only TV sitcom with a true "movie sensibility" -- GREAT writing(thank you, Larry David) uttered by exactly the right cast(the Fab Four and all those supporters and walk ons -- none better than blank-eyed hunk "Puddy.")

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Well...this one's definitely an acquired taste and a "guilty pleasure" and I'm not sure you're going to like it.

Took me a few weeks, but I've now seen Used Cars. I found it very funny at times, esp. its first half, but, for me, it's a notch down from its big 1980 summer competition - Blues Brothers, Airplane, Caddyshack. But.... I know very well the pleasures of discovering and cherishing a relatively unheralded movie for oneself. E.g., around 2000 everyone including me loved comedies like Rushmore, Election, Being John Malkovich, but I also really liked stuff I got to discover, read bad reviews for, and hear other people scorn: Birthday Girl, Human Nature, Opposite of Sex.

Anyhow, wow, movie comedies these days barely have any cultural traction compared to 1980. 2019 US box office doesn't feature a single even close to pure comedy in the top 20 (Men in Black is the first entry I'd class as predominantly comic at #22 with about $80 million gross). In 1980 5 of the top 6 films were comedies (9 to 5, Stir Crazy, Airplane, Any which way You can, Private Benjamin). Another 5 comedies are in the top 20 with Caddyshack the lowest at #17 & $39.5 mill. That adjusts to $124 mill today. So in 1980, the 10th best domestic grossing comedy solidly outgrossed the top-domestic grossing comedy of 2019. Caddy. cost almost nothing to make and was very profitable in the US alone whereas Men in Black had a budget of well over $100 mill. and made almost no profit even worldwide.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Took me a few weeks, but I've now seen Used Cars. I found it very funny at times, esp. its first half, but, for me, it's a notch down from its big 1980 summer competition - Blues Brothers, Airplane, Caddyshack.

---

Fair enough. I really don't count on "wins" when I champion a film that worked -- in certain ways -- only in the context of when I saw it(decades ago) and the circumstances and people with whom I saw it. I'd almost say I get scared when you volunteer to see something that I am praising because...it just CAN'T be the same. Oh, well.

But this: I saw all of those comedies in the summer of 1980, and then watched them all again on cable and VHS in the years after, and I still DO like Used Cars better than the others:

Caddyshack. Too much "side story" about the young caddies; Ted Knight's no Jack Warden.

The Blues Brothers: director John Landis, freed from the budget shackles put on Animal House, self-indulges to beat the band(everything is too big and too long), and Ackroyd's script isn't funny enough. Belushi is already showing the strain of trying to be a star(trying too hard; here and in 1941, too). I remember this movie as a whole bunch of car chases and car crashes -- and some great soul numbers.

Airplane: The jokes are sometimes great, but sometimes just silly -- and all the scenes with Robert Hays and...uh...Julie Haggerty...are TV sitcommish to me. (Hays and Haggerty basically aren't funny; converted Straight Men like Stack and Nielsen and Bridges and Graves have to carry the comedy.)

Versus those big three(all of which were much bigger hits than Used Cars) and even accounting for the silliness in the last half hour of Used Cars, it felt more adult to me...mean at times("Nobody ever died over fifty dollars"), profane at times($100,000 for a new Mercedes? That's too F'IN high! BOOM), sexy at times(the football game commercial)...just a great big surprise of "edge" comedy.

I do think that Animal House is funnier than Used Cars

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Anyhow, wow, movie comedies these days barely have any cultural traction compared to 1980. 2019 US box office doesn't feature a single even close to pure comedy in the top 20 (Men in Black is the first entry I'd class as predominantly comic at #22 with about $80 million gross). In 1980 5 of the top 6 films were comedies (9 to 5, Stir Crazy, Airplane, Any which way You can, Private Benjamin). Another 5 comedies are in the top 20 with Caddyshack the lowest at #17 & $39.5 mill. That adjusts to $124 mill today.

---

That's a pretty staggering list ...and a reminder that the movie business always runs in cycles. I think you can see the hand of two influences on those 1980 comedies: the arrival of SNL in the mid-seventies (Belushi, Ackroyd, Chase and Murray anchor Blues Brothers and Caddyshack) and the gigantic success of Animal House in 1978(which had Belushi, but was "overridden" by its hip Harvard Lampoon pedigree; these jokes were perfect and so was John Landis' comic timing.)

With the SNL/Lampoon players dominating the summer, we got the surprise of the "Airplane" writer-directors(who also worked hard on their hundreds of gags). Eastwood's orangutan sequel and Fonda's "Nine to Five" were perhaps the kind of "one offs"(or in Eastwood's case, "two offs") that a demand for comedy could produce that year.

---

So in 1980, the 10th best domestic grossing comedy solidly outgrossed the top-domestic grossing comedy of 2019. Caddy. cost almost nothing to make and was very profitable in the US alone whereas Men in Black had a budget of well over $100 mill. and made almost no profit even worldwide.

---

Well, I ask ya: what great comic talents were IN the new Men in Black? "Honey, leave the dishes in the sink....the new Chris Hemsworth comedy is out!"

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Well, I ask ya: what great comic talents were IN the new Men in Black? "Honey, leave the dishes in the sink....the new Chris Hemsworth comedy is out!"

The funny thing is that *as Thor* Hemsworth has been a *kind* of comedy find since Thor:Ragnarok... but, yeah, actual comedy movie stars.... The top-grossing comedy of 2018 was Night School with Kevin Hart & Tiffany Haddish, & the last comedies to gross more than $100 mill (albeit only just over) were in 2017: Girls Trip (Haddish's breakout), Pitch Perfect 3 (a sequel to Rebel Wilson's breakout), Daddy's Home 2 (a Will Ferrell sequel).

The last time a pure live action comedy grossed more than $200 mill domestic (i.e., was roughly the sort of domestic hit that Airplane, the #3 comedy of 1980 was) was The Hangover 2 in 2011 ($254 mill). Bridesmaids (Wiig, Fay, McCarthy) was also also a solid comedy hit that year ($180 mill).

Overall, you'd have to say it's been a while since there's been a breakout male comedy star, & *most* recent profitable comedy has been integrated within the two dominant popular forms for the last two decades: animation & superheroes.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The funny thing is that *as Thor* Hemsworth has been a *kind* of comedy find since Thor:Ragnarok...

--

Yes, I guess so...I didn't see that one, but I did see his "Fat Thor" act in Endgame and he's got some daring to him.

--
but, yeah, actual comedy movie stars...

--

You clearly know what I'm talking about("comedy stars" who are actual comedians), but I'm not sure if I'm talking about it correctly anyway. . the only SNL TV stars sought in mass quantities for movie stardom were in the first group(well, Bill Murray came in Season Two): Chase, Belushi, Ackroyd, Murray...a little bit for Gilda Radner. And they didn't really last very long before burning out (Belushi, of course, died.)

After that, the SNL stars were rather "outta nowhere" one offs. No one bigger than Eddie Murphy(and most of HIS castmates did NOT make it to movies...Joe Piscipo for a little bit, that's it.) Mike Myers. Adam Sandler. Chris Farley(sadly fulfilling his worship of John Belushi by overdose death.) Will Ferrell.

The SNL females struggled a bit for movie stardom. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler got some movies, but are mainly TV stars now. Kirsten Wiig kinda had it for awhile(Bridesmaids), but is now more of a "serious" actress. Indies. And one great big one coming: she's Cheetah(?) the villainess in the next Wonder Woman.

Kate MacKinnon is the SNL star right now, and she makes movies regularly, but can't get full traction there (her villainous music mogul in Yesterday was, I found, sadly self-referential and overdone.)

I find modern US politics literally unspeakable, but I think maybe SNL made a deal with the devil in getting higher ratings by catering to political audiences(ala Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.) You get ratings...but you don't necessarily get comedy fans. And its been hard for current SNLers to break loose from all the politics on the show and become stand alone stars. Starting with MacKinnon. Its a theory at least.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The top-grossing comedy of 2018 was Night School with Kevin Hart & Tiffany Haddish,

---

And poor ol' Kevin got dumped from hosting the Oscars. Dave Chapelle defended him about that this week...guy made a mistake...

---

& the last comedies to gross more than $100 mill (albeit only just over)

---

I remember when 100 million grosses were a big deal(US only): The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars.

I remember -- in the 90's -- when Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise kept up a "$100 million gross" competition -- each guy kept grossing that per movie(at least) until Cruise did Eyes Wide Shut, and lost his round.

But now? $100 million domestic is a fairly low number...and $100 million worldwide is a flop!

Still, I think movie people just like the SOUND of making $100 million. It sounds like a lot.

---

were in 2017: Girls Trip (Haddish's breakout), Pitch Perfect 3 (a sequel to Rebel Wilson's breakout), Daddy's Home 2 (a Will Ferrell sequel).

---

Can't say I saw those; read about them. Not necessarily pop classics.

But again, its an issue of "era." Comedies and comedy stars dominated in the 70's and 80's because the era was into it. We laughed more. And we had the Mel Brooks movies(though I think he was a bit too old fashioned for the 70's, after Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder stopped writing with him, that is to say, after Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, he rather fell on his face and the SNL guys routed him. Even as Pryor and Wilder became a comedy team.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But this, BTW. One reason I was taken by surprise by Used Cars is that the "three comedy stars" in it were not expected: Kurt Russell had been a Disney teenage star("The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes"), Gerrit Graham had been around awhile but with no traction; and Frank MacRae was totally unknown to me(he had a bit in 1941.) Jack Warden was employed to give the film a "name"(and he was great, playing one frail brother and one robust bully brother with equal skill) but....huh? And everybody was funny...even "Lenny and Squiggy"(under different names) were far more hip than they were on Laverne and Shirley.

In short "Used Cars" was the one 70's/80's cusp comedy(hey -- a DIFFERENT cusp for once) that didn't bank on SNL stars to hit.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

But again, its an issue of "era." Comedies and comedy stars dominated in the 70's and 80's because the era was into it.

I guess now I think about it the last 15 years or so there have bee a lot of flameouts and misses in the male comedy ranks... Dave Chappelle walked away just when he seemed ready to have an Eddie Murphy level career, Andy Samberg was the new Adam Sandler but his movies (which were funny & quite good!) never took off, Louis CK was the new Woody Allen before sexual scandal made his edginess unbearable, Simon Pegg & Nick Frost got their starts with Edgar Wright but didn't kick on to any kind of stardom really, ditto for NZ's Flight of the Conchords guys Jemaine & Brett, and the South Park guys have never been able to get out from under their cartoons and puppets. And the phenomenon you identify with SNL - becoming too relentlessly political - is really a broader phenomenon. Colbert & Oliver are both kind of geniuses but they're too in the partisan weeds now to become the Jack Benny or Cleese figures they might have been.

Is the world getting less funny? It's not much fun dealing with groups of people these days I find. Host a meal and you get these long lists of everyone's dietary requirements (for them and their kids). Just in the last year or two the same groups (esp. if there are high schoolers or college kids in the mix) also have their lists of pronoun requirements. And then after you put in all this effort as a host everyone acts like they're junkies for their next phone & device fix which gives everything an unpleasant contested vibe I find. Almost nobody has a decent stereo these days rather music gets played through TV systems which sound *dreadful*. So even *that* side of parties sucks now!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But again, its an issue of "era." Comedies and comedy stars dominated in the 70's and 80's because the era was into it.
I guess now I think about it the last 15 years or so there have bee a lot of flameouts and misses in the male comedy ranks...

---

A nice review of careers.

---

Dave Chappelle walked away just when he seemed ready to have an Eddie Murphy level career,

--

He gave remarks somewhere this week saying "its an awful time to be a celebrity." Comeidan, especially. They have to watch EVERYTHING they say.

---Andy Samberg was the new Adam Sandler but his movies (which were funny & quite good!) never took off, Louis CK was the new Woody Allen before sexual scandal made his edginess unbearable, Simon Pegg & Nick Frost got their starts with Edgar Wright but didn't kick on to any kind of stardom really, ditto for NZ's Flight of the Conchords guys Jemaine & Brett, and the South Park guys have never been able to get out from under their cartoons and puppets.

---

Yes, quite a review of reasons. There have to be reasons. Well, CK had a BIG reason....

I suppose budget is one of them. Blake Edwards spent biggish bucks on The Pink Panther and BIGGER bucks on The Great Race in the 60's(and we got Mad, Mad, World with the BIGGEST budget). Came the 70's, Woody made 'em cheap, but Mel Brooks needed some studio commitment to make Blazing Saddles and (in b/w) Young Frankenstein. Came 1979/80, 1941 and The Blues Brothers were big budget busters(the latter made a profit; the former...maybe?) And Ghostbusters cost some bucks(and MADE a lot more.)

I dunno, maybe my budget angle isn't valid. Woody and SOME of the SNLers and others made nice cheap comedies that made nice big bucks, but still, one needed an "ERA" to put even medium-budgeted comedies on the Assembly Line(Private Benjamin, Nine to Five with three ranking stars). Its rare now.

Melissa McCarthy got to make a few "funnies"(I've seen 'em all) but seems to have swerved into indies and dramas. Forever? Maybe not. But I think her "funnies" saw diminishing returns and HER Ghostbusters was a bust.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And the phenomenon you identify with SNL - becoming too relentlessly political - is really a broader phenomenon. Colbert & Oliver are both kind of geniuses but they're too in the partisan weeds now to become the Jack Benny or Cleese figures they might have been.

---

Its what they seem to want. They have other talents, but the big money is in politics.

Setting aside their likely very legitimate belief that they are "out to save their country" -- there are BIG BUCKS in going in the political direction, particularly in the famously divided TV world of 2000 channels. I'm old enough to remember Johnny Carson as rather a relief from politics(oh, he kidded Presidents, but rather lightly). I'm also old enough to remember the very political shows of Dick Cavett -- but at least he had various representatives sit down and talk issues in a serious manner. It wasn't just attacks.

Now, it seems that "full on daily attack mode" is the name of the game, and its amazing to me that celebrities still come on and plug their movies and TV shows even after the attacks. (And yes, I know that plenty of attacks come from BOTH sides, but honestly...there is a third side that just changes the channel on all of it.)

I dunno. Unspeakable. Honestly. I'm sorry I went there.

But humor IS changing.

And I tell you. I mentioned on one of the threads the other day that back in QT's first film, "Reservoir Dogs," some lowlife criminal types had a talk that was racist and homophobic. It was also kind of funny -- and dangerous ("You keep talking to me like a b--tch, and I'll slap you like a b--tch."). And because these were "horrible men"(ruthless killers), they GOT to talk that way. (Harvey Keitel committed to help fund and star in the movie saying to QT, "Do you know some of these criminals?" He was IMPRESSED by the dialogue. And QT didn' know any criminals. He just made it all up..)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

QT made his name being as "offensive as the 70's" and he's backed way down in OAITH..and still drawn some controversy over the Bruce Lee scene and "treatment of women"(psycho killer women?)

I expect "The Hays Code" is slowly reasserting itself. The easy phrase is "PC," but its more than that. There are just lots of things that simply can't be said now. Not even by QT.

Maybe somebody should make a shot-by-shot, line-by-line remake of The Road to Morocco and see how Hays Code jokes work today.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"Psycho was in some ways the FIRST of the youth-oriented summer blockbusters..."

Youth-oriented?? A Hitchcock film about a psychopathic murderer? And blockbuster? A little b/W film made by a television crew?

No offence, ecarle, but that makes you sound like a really old dude! :) :)

But your observations about the (tenuous) connection between "Psycho" and "Back To The Future" are interesting.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"Psycho was in some ways the FIRST of the youth-oriented summer blockbusters..."

Youth-oriented??

---

It was. You could look it up...

--

And blockbuster? A little b/W film made by a television crew?

---

It was. Paramount's biggest hit since The Ten Commandments. And one of only a handful of Paramount hits in the sixties. Whereupon Universal bought it and made moolah off of TV showings, sequels, TV series, and a remake(well, no moolah there.)

---

No offence, ecarle, but that makes you sound like a really old dude! :) :)

---

I AM a really old dude. On paper. But I'm young at heart.

---

But your observations about the (tenuous) connection between "Psycho" and "Back To The Future" are interesting.

---

Thank you. All connections are tenuous in this life...

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's just that, when I see the term "youth-oriented" I think of Annette Funicello/Frankie Avalon beach movies or classic films like American Graffiti.

I have the same interpretation problem with the term "Blockbuster". It makes me think of huge-budget, super Panovision epics with Charlton Heston.

"Thank you. All connections are tenuous in this life..."

Too true. :)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Aha...your explanations "re-fashion" my own thinking here.

Thanks, from the old dude...

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I think Psycho was getting attention in the 80s because a lot of people were comparing Steven Spielberg to Alfred Hitchcock. Anthony Perkins even did those Psycho sequels and there was an Amazing Stories episode where some kid actually found himself IN the movie Psycho.

I rewatched the BTTF sequels recently and some things are laughably weird and don't make sense. But that's also part of the charm. The idea that a DeLorean can be a time machine and that all these events happen in Hill Valley and the way Doc and Marty "fix" some things and don't worry about other things is all just crazy.
Christopher Lloyd really was the key to the whole thing. When he says, "What the hell" or "Don't worry about that" I'm inclined to say, "Thank you. Let's just go down this rabbit hole."
Michael J. Fox does a pretty good job too. I can accept the fact that these guys somehow became friends despite their age difference. I like to think Marty returned Eisnstein to Doc after he ran away from home and maybe Doc made that giant guitar amp to say thanks.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I think Psycho was getting attention in the 80s because a lot of people were comparing Steven Spielberg to Alfred Hitchcock.

--

Including Hitchcock's grown daughter, Pat Hitchcock, who saw Spielberg as the kind of "brand name hitmaker" that Hitchcock had been(except Spielberg had even more hits; it was like he made five Psychos almost in a row, less 1941.)

Funny thing: Spielberg eventually parted ways with Hitchcock/Disney type stuff and became more of a David Lean type. Or maybe a Stanley Kramer type. Though he returned to genre occasionally.

---

Anthony Perkins even did those Psycho sequels and there was an Amazing Stories episode where some kid actually found himself IN the movie Psycho.

---

A great little episode. That kid spent WAY too much time worshiping Psycho(hmmm?) and ended up IN the movie(and stalked by Mrs. Bates) for REAL. A great idea in many ways: don't let a movie take over your life and -- you'd never want to be IN Psycho, alone at the Bates Motel with Mother around...

Also for awhile, back to back with the Spielberg Amazing Stories we had new version of old Hitchcock Presents half hours...with colorized Hitch making the introductions.

As someone said of Hitchcock in the 80s(with all of the above AND the re-release of The Hitchcock Five: Vertigo, Rear Window "and more"). "Hitchcock never stopped being a success in Hollywood. He just died."

Plus: The Hitchcock series, half hours and hours, lasted ten LONG seasons. Spielberg's Amazing Stories died after two.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I rewatched the BTTF sequels recently and some things are laughably weird and don't make sense.

--

I have recently watched the original, but its years(decades?) since I watched the sequels. In the theater for both, I think, and that was it.

My vauge memories are that the second one played too fast and loose with the time travel universe(and used a guy in a mask to play the Crispin Glover part), and that the third one -- set in the Old West -- just seemed superfluous. (Why not send him...anywhere?) But there were hits and I know they all line up in a certain order that makes sense.

---

Christopher Lloyd really was the key to the whole thing. When he says, "What the hell" or "Don't worry about that" I'm inclined to say, "Thank you. Let's just go down this rabbit hole." ---

Yes, he was very good. I do like how quickly Marty was able to convince him, in 1955, that Marty was from 1985 -- Doc became an ally in both eras to Marty.

I read the imdb trivia and it says that also considered for Doc were John Lithgow, Jeff Goldblum and Dudley Moore. I'm sure we would have liked them too, but -- Christopher Lloyd feels "just right." (And Goldblum was too young at the time.)

Michael J. Fox does a pretty good job too.

---

He was very good. Stepping in (sadly) for a guy who got fired, Fox OWNED the role, developed his verbal and physical style...became a star for about a decade.

---

I can accept the fact that these guys somehow became friends despite their age difference.

---

Yes, its more "teacher/student" than father/son, but clearly Marty wasn't very proud of his own father...until changes were made.

---

I like to think Marty returned Eisnstein to Doc after he ran away from home and maybe Doc made that giant guitar amp to say thanks.

---

That's a nice idea!

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Cool. Nice to meet another fan of these movies.
And I used to like that Alfred Hitchcock Presents show as well.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Very good!

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

and there was an Amazing Stories episode where some kid actually found himself IN the movie Psycho.

I'd never heard of this ep. before, so thanks for the heads-up.

A quick bit of googling reveals that a watchable copy of the ep. is posted at a pretty reputable sub-youtube site called dailymotion. Here's that link:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hk4u4
The vid is mirror-reversed (to avoid copyright blocking) so I recommend downloading the ep. and then watching with a player, e.g., VLC, that allows you (under window...video effects...geometry in my version) to flip the image back.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

OMG, Amazing Stories' Psycho ep., while an interesting artifact for a Psycho fan to see once, is objectively about as terrible and unwatchable as they come! While we tend to remember the '80s for its popular triumphs... at the time for every Ferris Bueller or Back To The Future there were 50-100 sub-par, ultra-cloying, charmless, talentless imitation-Spielberg, imitation-Hughes knock-offs. Watching the ep. it was hard to believe anyone actually wrote these lines or ever thought that those ultra-broad acting choices were reasonable. Everyone's mugging all the time, every character is plastic/fake, every moment is punched up with phoney sentimental music.... Shudder... the mid-'80s really *were* full of junk like this. Kill it with fire. [South Park had some good jokes about the mis-remembered '80s last season: the kids have been watching & loving Stranger Things & its music & they try to use their phones to accompany their adventures with 'awesome '80s music'. But every time they put on an 'awesome '80s music' playlist from Spotify or Pandora it plays them actual (statistically normal, non-awesome) '80s music by people like Richard Marx & Laura Brannigan....]

The only good parts of the ep. were its use of Universal's Psycho sets and of footage from the movie. Having Spielberg as exec. producer has its benefits.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Sorry to be so negative about Amazing Stories S02E04. On one level I'm just struck by how awfully it plays compared to, say, the better eps of The Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents: the writing and acting on the '50s and '60s shows was so much cooler & just better. The *look* of the older shows is classical but good to great. The '80s show looks like McDonalds ads from the time and just *feels* relentlessly childish (& not in any good way).

I guess more adult shows from a few years later were a bit better in all these regards (so the excesses of the '80s were a bit self-correcting to be fair). Moonlighting and thirtysomething both did Hitchcock homages around 1987-1988 IIRC. The thirtysomething ep. is available on dailymotion (without mirror reversal this time):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ls7g6

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You were basically right though. Amazing Stories was like The Twilight Zone with big 80s hair, and not written as well. I actually liked the CBS reboot of the Twilight Zone (1985 - 1989) better. There were some good episodes written by Harlan Ellison and others.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Sorry to be so negative about Amazing Stories S02E04

--

No worries.

But this is funny. You will noticed my deleted tweet above. I responded to you , led with my earlier sentences, "A great little episode..." and "A great idea in many ways"..and went on to discuss my OWN problems with the execution.

But the post "died" before I could get it delivered...and all that appeared on the final post was:

"A great little episode...a great idea in many ways." And that was all.

Oops. So I deleted THAT post.

And thus, corrected:

I said "a great little episode...and a great idea in many ways" ...but the acting and execution was indeed terrible. Its like every actor/actress in it was directed to be obnoxious and to work at the top of their lungs. Including a very young Christina Applegate, shortly before she went va-va-voom on Married With Children(decades later, she is now playing an attractive aged widow with teenagers on "Dead to Me.")

The young male lead was too "nerdly." You could be a Psycho fan and not be like THAT. (I do recall a girl who wanted me to date her in high school telling me how she was reading Robert Bloch's Psycho -- somebody told her I liked it.)

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

On one level I'm just struck by how awfully it plays compared to, say, the better eps of The Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents: the writing and acting on the '50s and '60s shows was so much cooler & just better. The *look* of the older shows is classical but good to great. The '80s show looks like McDonalds ads from the time and just *feels* relentlessly childish (& not in any good way).

---

Agreed. Keep in mind that Spielberg once told a story about how, in 1960 as a teenager in Phoenix(hey, 1960 in Phoenix....), he and his friends went to see "The Lost World"(Irwin Allen's production with Michael Rennie and Claude Rains) at a local movie theater with mushroom soup ready to pour in their mouths -- to "vomit" down from the balcony on the crowd below.

I always felt that conceptualized the "downside" of Spielberg -- maybe more with his producer jobs than directing. But "vomiting off the balcony" and the infantile aspects of it came through in such Spielberg misses as 1941, Temple of Doom, Gremlins, Goonies....some of those were hits, but they PLAYED that way to me; infantile. During this period, there was a goofy looking Jerry Lewis clone named Eddie Deezen who ended up in a lot of these things, and HE felt like the downside of Spielberg, too.

The kid in the Psycho episode of Amazing Stories was Eddie Deezen-like, so no...I didn't like THAT.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But what I DID like was the idea that for any young person, getting too wrapped up in one movie (the kid used the shower scene video as his alarm clock) or genre(the kid liked ALL horror movies) can be detrimental, you have to live life...

And what I liked BETTER was the idea of "being transported INTO Psycho"...with the kid entering a "magic theater" which suddenly put him in black and white, and wandering around the Bates Motel exterior...on a dark night...just after a storm had passed...near Marion's car(with raindrops still all over the windshield.) And suddenly, up in the window, Mother SEES him ...and starts coming down to GET him. That's the stuff of nightmare. (That the male kid ends up in Marion's dress at one point, and then naked in the shower at another, is less nightmarish.)

There's a reason why this Amazing Episode episode was produced in the fall of 1986. That summer, Psycho III had come out. Three years earlier when Psycho II was made, the production was so cheap that they didn't even build the entire Bates Motel -- only the office area and cabin one(a high long shot of the motel was of a matte painting version.)

For Psycho III, the Bates Motel was entirely built (with scenes in various rooms and with the motel in clear view). And thus: Amazing Stories now had the "whole Bates enchilada"(house AND motel) to film something at. The result: this dubious episode. (With a great idea.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

OMG, Amazing Stories' Psycho ep., while an interesting artifact for a Psycho fan to see once, is objectively about as terrible and unwatchable as they come! While we tend to remember the '80s for its popular triumphs... at the time for every Ferris Bueller or Back To The Future there were 50-100 sub-par, ultra-cloying, charmless, talentless imitation-Spielberg, imitation-Hughes knock-offs.

---

Yes. The 80's felt rather "plastic" to me as they happened. I remember feeling that the 90s were a "return to adulthood" in many ways. All those tough thrillers for one thing(Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, LA Confidential.)

The 70's filmmakers had their OWN weakness: they were as slavish to the 50s/60's European film model as the 80's filmmakers would be to past TV/Sci Fi. But I still liked the 70's product better...and the 90's product felt like a bit of a return("offensive" Tarantino was very much a 70's throwback.)

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Watching the ep. it was hard to believe anyone actually wrote these lines or ever thought that those ultra-broad acting choices were reasonable. Everyone's mugging all the time, every character is plastic/fake, every moment is punched up with phoney sentimental music.... Shudder

---

Yep...no way I liked THAT. A "writing experiment" would be to give the episode roughly the same ending(the kid is transported into Psycho), but with a much more Hitchcockian set-up and characterization: erudite characters, wry wit, the whole "Hitchcock touch."

But ah...this was a SPIELBERG production...and ..."vomiting mushroom soup from the balcony" was the angle.

Indeed, Spielberg "as a whole" is quite problematic to me. "Duel"(that great TV movie) and "Jaws" launched him "in the Hitchcock tradition," and both movies had a cool, adult quality to them. But it as if as time and hits kept coming, Spielberg's "inner nerd" kept breaking through. Not to mention: a rather poor sense of story structure(yes, other people wrote the scripts, but Spielberg supervised them.)

Close Encounters was so "lumpy" that Spielberg kept re-cutting it for different releases. 1941 eschewed Belushi and Ackroyd in favor of Eddie Deezen. Raiders -- my favorite of 1981 -- had a weird "gory Disney" flavor to it(is this for kids or adults?) and ran out of gas at the end. ET was a wonder, and I stood in the long lines and cried but....its really the End of Spielberg as he once was. From then on, he had the power to "outsource" his genre movies and embark on an odd quest to become either the next David Lean...or the next Stanley Kramer.

Spielberg's participation in a "studio"(DreamWorks) and putting his name on things like "Transfomers" made him richer than Hitchcock ever was...but at what cost?

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It seems like too many of his recent films have NOT been events -- The BFG, War Horse, TinTin -- anybody actually GO to those?

And he made one that I recall seeing and hating, with Tom Hanks yet, called The Terminal. It had a terminal script...people around Hanks had to act extra dumb to keep the plot going(he LIVES at the airline terminal and nobody notices.)

That said, because of the law of averages, Spielberg has landed my "favorite movie" slot probably as much as Hitchcock, Scorsese, and QT:

1975: Jaws
1981: Raiders
1982: ET

1998: Saving Private Ryan(an intensely VIOLENT film...rather Spielberg's Torn Curtain or Frenzy.)

And he came close with the first Jurassic Park(which is much less exciting than Jaws, but has that great first T-Rex scene.) And he came closer with The Lost World : Jurassic Park(aha, Phoenix 1960)...with that great cliffhanger(literally) which ends with a Really Nice Guy getting torn apart by TWO T-Rexes after saving everybody( that had that kind of "Psycho ironic doom" to it.)

Schindler's List? Clearly a great film and yet...a bit "Spielbergized" at the end( in real life Schindler didn't get to meet some many of his saved Jews, nor to say "I should have saved more.)

Since then, it seems that I really like Spielberg when he almost accidentally comes up with a story(and case) I like:

Catch Me If You Can (what a great plot! what a great credit sequence and music); Bridge of Spies(Hanks and that cool Russian agent); Lincoln(incredible work by DDL and a delightful sense of hard-lobbying dirty politics "even back then.")

I dunno... I think that Spielberg has been "so all over the map" for 50 years now that I just can't rank him with more "narrowcast" specialists like Hitch, Siegel, Burton, Scorsese(in gangster/thriller mode) and QT. Or The Coens. (And I find Sidney Lumet to project more intelligence than Spielberg. )

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

On one level I'm just struck by how awfully it plays compared to, say, the better eps of The Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents: the writing and acting on the '50s and '60s shows was so much cooler & just better.

---

NBC tried to do something "good" in the 80's by running Amazing Stories back to back with the re-done Hitchcock episodes(old scripts, new casts - they even did the scary "An Unlocked Window" again.) And with Hitchcock's old intros now colorized.

The effect was to put into even sharper relief that Hitchcock was an intelligent, adult "force" and Spielberg truly WAS "infantile"(in certain ways.) THAT said, the modernized Hitchcock episodes generally didn't play as well as their b/w predecessors(An Unlocked Window in color with a "thin young nurse" as the villain wasn't as scary as the original.)

But Hitchcock in the 50' and 60's could do something that Spielberg in the 80's couldn't do: he raided DECADES of well-written short stories, novels, novellas, and plays and thereby put some of the Greatest Stories Ever Told on his weekly TV series...and in the time-compressed manner of short stories...30 minutes instead of a two-hour movie.

---

The *look* of the older shows is classical but good to great. The '80s show looks like McDonalds ads from the time and just *feels* relentlessly childish (& not in any good way).

---

Yep. That's how I felt. I stand by my regard for Raiders and ET, but as the 80's went on, they felt less classic, more childish (Die Hard, for instance, put Raiders to shame in the plotting and climax departments, and had a better villain -- though Raiders actually has THREE villains...it can't make up its mind.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I guess more adult shows from a few years later were a bit better in all these regards (so the excesses of the '80s were a bit self-correcting to be fair). Moonlighting and thirtysomething both did Hitchcock homages around 1987-1988 IIRC. The thirtysomething ep. is available on dailymotion (without mirror reversal this time):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ls7g6

---

I'll have to go look up that Thirtysomething Hitchcock episode. I recall being amused by it...the ThirtySomething creators had actually used the line(in another episode) "You are positively glutinous with self-approbation" -- which is from Frenzy, and a bit overwritten, and I was delighted that a ThirtySomething writer remembered it.

Moonlighting did two or three Hitchcock themed episodes -- Vertigo was one plot re-used, and climaxed one episode with the overture from North by Northwest as a crop duster chased a car down a street.

What was going on here , I've always felt, is that the legion(thousands? millions?) of Hitchcock fans raised on his movies as kids in the 50s and 60's were starting to place themselves "in the movie and TV show making process." DePalma was Number One, but surely Spielberg and Scorsese were part of it, too(Scorsese had Herrmann put Psycho music in at the end of Taxi Driver.) And these other folks ended up in TV, showrunning Moonlighting and Thirty-Something. (I'm reminded that Eva Marie Saint played Cybill Shepard's mother on Moonlighting BTW).

Meanwhile, folks like me pursued "regular lives and careers" but never lost OUR Hitchcock regard.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

You were basically right though. Amazing Stories was like The Twilight Zone with big 80s hair,

---

Ha. There's an image.

I would like to add, in passing, that I never liked the hair on women in the 80's. At least in "regular" TV shows and the like. It was big and frizzy and "not becoming" and I recall when in the 90's, female hair started to "flatten out" again...I noticed it. and I was glad.

---

and not written as well.

---

Well, Hitchcock (for one) was able to use short stories and other materials written by great writers and usually to get it adapted by great screenwriters.

I've read, time and time again, that Hollywood is far more desperate for writers than for actors. But writing is harder to do....

---

I actually liked the CBS reboot of the Twilight Zone (1985 - 1989) better. There were some good episodes written by Harlan Ellison and others.

---

I bought a book of Harlan Ellison's film reviews from the 80's(for odd publications) and boy did that guy have a temper. He didn't suffer fools gladly...and he felt a lot of people were fools. In the 80's, Ellison really had it in for Spielberg , but more for his producer-only gigs like Gremlins(Ellison hated that one with a three-article passion) and Young Sherlock Holmes. And he didn't like BTTF, either. I'd say this helped keep Ellison from the big time in the 80's. Oh, well.

reply