credit: www.impawards.com

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

Starring Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, and Paul Freeman
Written by Lawrence Kasdan
Directed by Steven Spielberg

Mike Noyes, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

When it comes to action flicks, it doesn’t get much better than Raiders. Harrison Ford has one of the greatest introductions in a film. We are given only glimpses of him at first; seeing him use his whip and test the poison on a dart. Then finally he steps from the shadows and the light reveals his face. Giving filmgoers their first glimpse of one of the silver screens greatest heroes. Speaking of great introductions the best one in the movie is Marians. In this kind of film the female is usually delegated to the “damsel in distress”, but how many damsels can drink a man twice her size under the table? That scene tells us exactly who she is and that she’s not a broad to mess with.

This film is a perfect blend of action and humor. All the action sequences are flawless and are only added to by John Williams’ memorable score. There really isn’t a bad thing to be said for this film. Some of the blue screen is kinda cheesy but that was the technology of the time, and for the time it looked excellent. Spielberg and Lucas really out did themselves when they put this little gem of a film together, and as action movies go I don’t think it’s been rivaled since. This is about as near perfect as films get and is a true essential.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Michaelangelo McCullar, Popcorn Junkies Editor:

The #2 film in our 25 Most BADASS Flicks Ever list is about as perfect a film as you could ask for. From the opening set piece in the South American jungles to the final retribution from the Hand of God, the film hurtles at a high pace and never lets up.

This is the film that made Harrison Ford a true star. Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher were never really able to break free of their Star Wars roles, but as the intrepid Indiana Jones, Ford was able to let the moviegoing public see him as something other than the roguish Han Solo. Jones was just as, if not more so, iconic a figure as Han (Indy was #2 in our 100 Greatest Film Characters of All Time, while Han was #7). But at the end of the day, the character wouldn’t have made such an imprint in our consciousness if the film wasn’t a classic.

This film had it all. Great action, classic characters, the perfect villain, exotic locales. It had a director in his prime, a writer hitting his stride, and a star that was ready to break out. There aren’t many times that you get all those things coalescing at the same time, and when it happens, it’s usually good enough to be a 50 Club member. Raiders is no exception.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Tom Pandich, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

Raiders of the Lost Ark is an incredibly entertaining film, but it just isn’t 50 Club material. The film has some great action scenes in it, but there simply isn’t enough to fill in the gaping holes of this film. Ok, we’ve got the Ark of the Covenant that Hitler is obsessing over finding in Egypt. We’ve got Indiana Jones who also obsesses over finding these artifacts (for much nobler reasons of course). The Nazis get to the Ark and open it… and die.

The simple problem with Raiders of the Lost Ark is that in an action movie, the central character ends up being the center of attention the entire film, but relatively pointless to the plot. This works in something where a historical event is fictionalized but integrates the hero/heroine in (take Forrest Gump for example). It does not work for a piece of pure fiction like Raiders of the Lost Ark though. You need Luke to blow up the Death Star, Chief Brody to blow up Jaws, and James Bond to shoot the villain of the movie, but Indiana Jones is not essential to his movie. I consider this a major flaw in the script that does quite a bit of damage to the film’s story.

Beyond this, there’s a lot to like about Raiders of the Lost Ark. It has an incredibly rousing score and fantastic sound editing. Harrison Ford does a fantastic job offsetting Karen Allen who just strikes me as shrill. The action scenes blend humor and action incredibly well. It’s a fun movie that’s enjoyable for most people.

Ultimately, there’s too much wrong with Indy’s first adventure to admit it into the 50 Club. Beyond the story’s core flaw, it’s an incredibly trite film. Raiders of the Lost Ark falls back on the ultimate American evil, the Nazis, and tosses them wherever the film needs them to be regardless of any historical fact. Then again, since it’s an entertaining historical action film, we’re supposed to forgive it for tossing clichés and anachronisms left and right, right?

I’m playing the bad cop with this movie. I actually enjoy it quite a bit for what it is. Raiders of the Lost Ark is incredibly entertaining, and I’ll watch it whenever it comes on TV. Just because it’s entertaining though doesn’t make it perfect though. Sorry folks. Raiders is “just” a great film.

STORY: 6/10
ACTING: 8/10
ORIGINALITY: 7/10
LOOK/FEEL: 8/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 39/50
FINAL SCORE: 8

The 50 Club’s Ratings for The Maltese Falcon
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	26/30
ACTING	28/30
ORIGINALITY	27/30
LOOK/FEEL	28/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	30/30
TOTAL POINTS	139/150

Final Analysis: Unfortunately, Raiders just didn’t make the cut for The 50 Club. Still, it’s one of the best cinematic thrill rides ever made and should definitely be in your home DVD collection.

Eric Szulczewski: The Apartment - If you want a film with both history and modernity going for it, you can’t find a better one. It’s the last black-and-white film to win Best Picture. It’s Billy Wilder’s last great work. It’s a classic comedy with a sensibility so modern that it still rings true four and a half decades after it was made. It’s Jack Lemmon’s greatest performance. It might be Shirley MacLaine’s greatest as well depending on how you feel about Terms Of Endearment. It’s just a light little comedy, but it has a theme that resonates with everyone: how far do you go to keep your job? Nothing socially significant, nothing important, but it has a universal appeal that makes it watchable even today.

Mike Noyes: My nomination for the 50 Club is Arsenic & Old Lace. There aren’t that many comedies that get consideration and if ever there was one that should it’s this one. Cary Grant is amazing as he slowly falls apart throughout the film. And the darkness of the whole thing, these sweet old ladies that kill men because they think they’re lonely. This is practically the birth of the dark comedy and excels on every level.

Robert Sutton: Goldfinger - Maybe it’s just that I’m in a Bond mood because of Casino Royale, but Goldfinger really is one of the most important Action films of all time. Goldfinger’s not even my favorite 007 adventure (that would be The Spy Who Loved Me), but it’s still the quintessential entry into the series. Everything that you would want or need from a Bond film is here: Connery turning in his best performance of the series; Honor Blackman becomes one of the best of the Bond Girls as Pussy Galore; and Goldfinger and Oddjob (Gert Fröbe and Harold Sakata) earning their place in the Bond Villain Hall of Fame. By the time that 007 fights Oddjob in the basement of Ft. Knox while handcuffed to a nuclear bomb, you’ll wonder why modern Action pictures can’t be this much fun. Endlessly copied, and topped by perhaps only two Adventure movies since its release (Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark), Goldfinger’s villains may have wanted Bond to die, but instead they garnered him cinematic immortality.

ML Kennedy: It took me a long time to settle on a nomination for the 50 Club. I generally gauge movies thematically; even after all this time, our 50 point scoring rubric doesn’t come to me naturally. So, I considered numerous choices, deciding right away that I didn’t want to choose something obvious. The world doesn’t need another essay on the greatness of The Bicycle Thief. I pondered over everything from Cukor to Pixar, from Cinderella to The Searchers. A film would be wonderful, yet not worthy of a 10 for originality. Something like Rope would get a 10 for originality from me, but would lose points for acting. I needed a unique film with marvelous acting, a great story, etc.

The answer was Dead Ringers

Dead Ringers is an interesting movie. If you bring up the film around a woman, chances are she’ll shudder. If she has seen the film, she’ll shudder like a guy would upon mention of the “bathtub scene” in I Spit on Your Grave. You’ll find a lot of metaphorical mutant vaginas in art, from the pit in “The Pit and the Pendulum” to the reapers of Blade 2. Cronenberg’s Dead Ringers takes the mutant vagina literally.

Dead Ringers features two marvelous performances by Jeremy Irons as twin gynecologists, Beverly and Elliot Mantle. They share everything, including actress love interest Claire Niveau (Genevieve Bujold), who initially believes them to be one man. As the film progresses, we realize that despite being identical in appearance, the twins couldn’t be more dissimilar in personality. It is remarkably easy to tell which is Beverly and which is Leslie, without any overt plot devices explaining it to us. The film manages to be touching, creepy, funny, erotic, and obsessed with both technology and human anatomy. In other words, it is a Cronenberg film.

Scott “Kubryk” Sawitz: There was a time when making a sequel to a successful film wasn’t a given; it was something debated and pondered for some time before money was budgeted and stars signed. And, to be honest, most sequels never match the appeal of the film that originally spawned them. There are few films whose sequels are considered superior: one of those is Aliens.

One of the few films that can truly be considered a full-throttle action film, it cemented Sigourney Weaver’s place in action film history as one of its finest heroes as Ripley once again ventures back to fight the aliens from Alien. Whereas the first film was a horror film of the highest order, James Cameron has taken the world that Riley Scott created and crafted in its stead an action film that would raise the bar in the years after.

credit: en.wikipedia.org

THE MALTESE FALCON

Starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, and Sidney Greenstreet
Written and Directed by John Huston

Mike Noyes, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

The Maltese Falcon is the definition of Film Noir and considered by many to be one of the first. The mood, the shadows, the dialog, the femme fatale. All the ingredients are there and John Huston knows exactly how to mix them together to make a fantastic film. Humphrey Bogart’s Sam Spade is so cool, so suave that you just buy into everything he does, every move he makes.

About the only problem with this film is that in its greatness, it’s been copied and borrowed from and parodied so many times that watching it now takes away from some of its relevance. However, this film is a true original (and while I mean that statement, it’s funny to mention that this is a remake.) and I don’t feel it’s dated at all. There are enough twists and turns in this film that if you’ve never seen it before (I know you’re out there) you’ll never see what’s coming next and for those who have seen it this is a movie that warrants multiple viewings.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Michaelangelo McCullar, Popcorn Junkies Editor:

You know, the funny thing about clichés, there was a time when they weren’t clichés. Time was, they were something new and fresh and innovative, and other films began copying the ideas, until they became something we’d seen so often they were now officially “cliché”. No film better epitomizes that than The Maltese Falcon.

What do I mean, you ask? Well, simply this: people have been trying to remake The Maltese Falcon for over 60 years now in one form or another, with varying degrees of success. It is THE template for the hard-boiled detective movie: Chinatown paid homage to it; last year’s criminally underseen Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang satirized it (in a completely respectful way); this year’s Brick modernized it and set it in high school. Even the great John Holmes’s most famous role, Johnny Wadd, is based on Sam Spade. Hell, you know Alfred Hitchcock, the greatest filmmaker ever to walk the Earth? You know how he loved to use MacGuffins in his films? Well, what do you think the Maltese Falcon was?

I’m not sure how many superlatives there are to describe this film. Are there any minor quibbles? Not for me, but then again I’m not quite the film historian Eric Szulczewski is (to my undying chagrin); that’s why I’m in the middle today and he’s batting cleanup. Simply put, John Huston took a piece of source material that had been made into two earlier, much lesser films, and crafted a cinematic masterpiece. Could he have been as successful without his cast? Humphrey Bogart (a nearly failed B-flick actor), Mary Astor (a scandal-ridden actress), Peter Lorre (a German actor relegated to playing Mr. Moto), and Sidney Greenstreet (a British stage actor appearing in his first film) all come together to bring Huston’s script to vivid life. Or was this scattered group of actors elevated to great performances by the direction and script of Huston? It’s a chicken or egg argument. Either way, this group of people teamed up to craft a film that folks have been trying (and mostly failing) to replicate for seven decades.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Eric Szulczewski, IWC Godfather:

In a movie genre that’s as cliché-ridden and by-the-numbers as the detective story, how do you treat the film that created and established most of those clichés?

You treat it with reverence, that’s how. This is no ordinary film. It’s inspired a full-length parody (The Blackbird). Roman Polanski and Robert Towne crafted a full-length homage to this film (including casting John Huston in it) that’s a member of the 50 Club. It was the film that inspired Alfred Hitchcock to coin the term “MacGuffin” to describe a seemingly inconsequential object that proves key to the plot (think the briefcase in Pulp Fiction). When Jon Anderson and Vangelis wanted to create a suite-length song to describe their love for classic films, the movie they used as the center of the song, the film that was emblematic of the greatness that they saw in Golden Age Hollywood, was The Maltese Falcon (it was no coincidence that Vangelis wrote his two best movie soundtracks after that song, Chariots Of Fire and Blade Runner). That’s some heavy baggage for any film to possess. And it makes it very, very hard to judge it objectively for 50 Club standards.

It isn’t the first detective story on screen (the first sound version of Bulldog Drummond came out in 1929), and it wasn’t the progenitor of the hard-boiled, ultra-realistic, hard-hitting film (hey, it came from Warner Brothers, who’d spent the last decade perfecting that tone and look). But because of its status and because of its popularity, now and then, it just seems like it was. It’s the wellspring for the detective film and, it could be said, film noir as a genre. And let us not forget that the phenomenal chemistry between its three male leads inspired Warners to cast them together again the very next year in another project that turned out even better, a little film you may have heard of called Casablanca.

Considering how truly legendary this film is, it’s a miracle that it was made. Everything around it and involving it was wrong.

Look at the star. Humphrey Bogart was regarded as a failure in Hollywood. He’d never been able to follow up his incredibly intense performance in The Petrified Forest with anything substantial. By 1939, Warner Brothers was putting him in B movies and in small roles in A pictures like Dark Victory. 1941 would be the year everything would change for him, though. After boatloads of actors, from George Raft to Paul Muni, turned down the lead role in High Sierra, it was given to Bogey as a sop, to shut him up. That role would turn him into a major star, but his status wasn’t established as fact when he was cast in The Maltese Falcon.

Mary Astor’s career was in total freefall due to a very nasty and public divorce scandal. Her doctor husband attempted to persuade the public that she was an unfit mother for their child, revealing rather lurid diary entries written by Astor regarding a supposed affair with comic playwright George S. Kaufman, among others. This did serious damage to Astor’s well-crafted image as the virginal successor to Mary Pickford. The charges were eventually found to be false and Astor retained custody of her daughter, but that was because her lawyers successfully painted her husband as the alcoholic philanderer that he was. It wasn’t known at the time how much her reputation had been destroyed, and whether or not she could regain her luster with the audience.

(Just to go off on a tangent for a second, doctor/actress marriages were very much in vogue during the 1930s. There were a number of them in Hollywood. The studios encouraged this mainly for two reasons. First of all, doctors were socially acceptable in the role of merkins for a number of starlets of the sapphic persuasion. This was the case with Claudette Colbert’s husband. The second was that, no matter what their specialty, once the doctors were in Hollywood’s orbit, they inevitably became specialists in venereal diseases and accomplished abortionists. At a time when sexually-transmitted diseases and, especially, an abortion would cause a nationwide outcry against a star, it was common practice to have in-house people to handle those delicate issues at the studio, doctors who would remain discreet about such matters. The presence of a spouse on the lot would not be remarked upon in a suspicious fashion, so relationships between actresses and doctors were encouraged; also, the studios had leverage over the doctors should they not remain discreet in the fact that they could ruin a spouse’s career no matter how popular the spouse was. That mixture of medical treatment and power found its ultimate expression in Louella Parsons’ ugly, drunk, hung-like-a-moose* doctor husband. He became Hollywood’s favorite clap doctor due to Queen Louella’s all-access pass to every studio in town and the secrets that she carefully hid from her readership. The exception to this general rule was Ingrid Bergman’s husband. When she came to Hollywood, he refused to get caught in the vortex and maintained his distance from the movie business.)

* - One of the standard jokes floating around Hollywood during the 40s involved two gentlemen who shared a urinal experience with Dr. Harry Martin. After both caught a gander at what Martin was packing, one supposedly said to the other, “Oh, my God, what was that?” The other responded, “That’s Louella’s column.”

No one knew what to do with Peter Lorre. Here was a classically-trained stage actor who’d been a star in Europe. He’d already created one of the most vivid portraits of evil ever captured on screen for Fritz Lang in M. But Hollywood just threw its hands up when he came to the US. What do you do with a guy who sounds like Bela Lugosi and looks like Stan Laurel? All he was fit for was Mister Moto.

At a time of life when most actors consider retirement, Sydney Greenstreet decided to transition from stage to motion pictures. No one had pulled off that trick successfully except for Marie Dressler, and she was a very special case indeed. Could Greenstreet be a success? It was a dubious proposition, to say the least.

Dashiell Hammett may have been one of America’s most popular novelists, but he’d never made a name for himself in Hollywood, and that’s all that mattered to the motion picture industry. Besides, he was one of those Evil Commies who were causing trouble within the writers’ community, at that time fractiously separated by politics, with the Screen Writers’ Guild just becoming established.

And John Huston? Oh, God, not another Writer Who Wants To Direct (and even worse, another Writer Who Wants To Direct His Own Script Adaptation)! There were enough of those in Hollywood. Besides, everyone in the town knew about the dark little secret in his closet. Around 1936, he was the driver in a vehicular manslaughter. Louis B. Mayer covered the whole thing up as a favor to John’s father Walter, one of Mayer’s favorite actors. That relationship would actually cause bad blood between Mayer and Huston fìls later on, when John directed Walter in Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Mayer couldn’t stand the fact that Huston made his own father, normally a dapper, debonair figure on the screen, into a grubby slob, even having Dad remove his false teeth to play his role. Sometimes, Louis B. just didn’t get it.

Add all of this to the fact that Jack Warner had green-lighted this picture as a B movie (a lot of that due to the circumstances above), and you can see a recipe for a forgotten piece of lore being outlined. It could be argued that the only reason this film got a push was Bogart’s success in High Sierra. Without that, this film would be forgotten today.

But does that make it a weak movie? Oh, hell, no. If it was weak, it wouldn’t have been the source of all those clichés I mentioned above. It’s as well-crafted as a Chippendale table. The story might be a little hackish, but Huston’s script pared Hammett down to the basics and ramped up the pace. The visual look is something that most films strive to achieve and fail miserably. The lighting and cinematography are masterworks (full kudos to Arthur Edeson). Adolph Deutsch’s soundtrack makes you wonder why he’s forgotten today (especially since he was a favorite of Billy Wilder). Technically, there’s not one false note expressed here. Nothing rings false, from the looks of the sets to the movements of the actors. Huston knew what he wanted and he got everyone to give it to him, in spades (pun intended). All of the plot convolutions seem absolutely natural and organic, and they flow perfectly. There’s not one dead spot in this film, which is a near-miracle for a genre as dialogue-driven as the detective story.

So, if the movie’s a technical tour de force, especially for a first-time director, what is the acting like? Allow me to expose Humphrey Bogart’s dirty little secret: he plays up to the level of his competition. His best performances have always come alongside the strongest actresses he’s played with. Bette Davis in The Petrified Forest, Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca, his future wife Lauren Bacall in To Have And Have Not, Katherine Hepburn in The African Queen, Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina…there’s a definite pattern there (I don’t include The Caine Mutiny on that list of great performances because he went a little over-the-top for my taste in it). Compared to those actresses, Mary Astor is a lightweight. So, this isn’t one of Bogie’s truly best. But he’s so immersive as Sam Spade that it’s addictive to watch him. He makes you believe in this character and understand his travails. His reactions to everything are a beauty to watch, whether it’s being threatened by the Fat Man or threatening Brigid. Bogie was never one for Method Acting, but he provides a great model on how to get into a character and how to get the audience into him as well. Again, it’s craft over skill, but, as I said, everything in this film is well-crafted. Even Mary Astor, a good but not great actress, benefits from Huston’s sure hand. Her Brigid wasn’t her best performance either (that was in Red Dust), but she strikes the perfect note of feigned innocence that the role absolutely requires.

One of my benchmarks on performances is “Who could have played this role better?” In the case of Sam Spade, George Raft may have been a good choice had he accepted the role. He would have brought a bit of self-aware humor to the part that Bogart didn’t, which would definitely be the approach sixty-five years later. But Bogart’s incredible intensity just makes that approach seem wrong (and it definitely was wrong for 1941). James Cagney would have brought the intensity, but he might have suffocated the role. Besides, he was the wrong physical type for Spade, and he was doing anything and everything to get out of his Warners contract at the time. Most of the other performers in Hollywood at the time were, quite frankly, too handsome. The role needed someone of Bogie’s rugged looks. Robert Montgomery could have done what Bogie did acting-wise, but his looks would have undercut the essentials in Spade’s character.

As for Astor’s substitute, one wishes that a stronger actress would have been available. Warners really didn’t have one that would have fit the needs, though. They weren’t going to do a loan-out for what was booked as a B picture by a first-time director. There were very few actresses of Astor’s age that could have done the innocence bit. Joan Crawford couldn’t have pulled it off. Teresa Wright was too young. The closest great actress to Astor for this role would have been Greer Garson, and, boy, Garson and Bogie would have been something together. However, that possibility was impossible at the time (Mayer wouldn’t let Garson be loaned out, and Warner wouldn’t have let Bogie get loaned out after High Sierra).

That being said, there is no one, absolutely no one, who I can think of to play Joel Cairo other than Peter Lorre. If all you look at is the end of his career, with the Corman movies and the beach films (okay, The Raven was phenomenally funny, but the rest?), you get a severe false impression of how great an actor he was. I don’t care if you don’t know German, see M for proof. Cairo was his most challenging role. He had to play the whole part in the realm of subtlety thanks to the Production Code. In the book, Hammett states Cairo’s sexual preference directly. That subject was not allowed to be portrayed blatantly on screen, though, so Lorre has to build the case for Cairo through innuendo and body language, and does it brilliantly. On top of that, he had to add on Cairo hiding his more sinister purposes from Spade in the hunt for the statue. It’s a lot easier to play a role like this today, you have to admit. But that was the genius of a lot of actors (and screenwriters) of the period, getting around the limitations provided by the Production Code, and in the process, creating a more vivid and realistic character. We’ve lost that subtlety of performance in today’s films.

And I can’t think of another person other than Sydney Greenstreet to play Kasper Gutman, the Fat Man. The English actor was making his film debut in this movie, at the age of 62 no less. But it’s like he was born to be in front of the camera. His presence is so overwhelming that he doesn’t have to say a word, but you’re glad when he does. That voice, straight from the grave, is a shock the first time you hear it. His perfect performance, with not a word or gesture wasted, is the cherry on top. Greenstreet was the key element in the chemistry. You want proof? Fortunately, we have it. Between The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca, Bogart and Lorre were teamed together in All Through The Night. Their third party in that film was one of the greatest actors of the 20th Century, Conrad Veidt. At best, All Through The Night is regarded as a minor forgotten classic. In the meantime, the other two films are regarded as two of the greatest ever made. Yes, the scripts of the two classics are far better, but it’s the performances that matter, and Bogart and Lorre were inferior in All Through The Night. The credit has to go to Greenstreet.

So, all the fellation aside, why am I knocking off points, enough points that it may be driven out of the 50 Club while its two-and-a-half-hour tribute Chinatown is in (which is a goddamn shame if it happens…Noyes and McCullar, save us from this!)? Because of that little category called Originality. As I said, the detective story wasn’t anything new in films by 1941. Plus, this one came from Warner Brothers, the studio that turned out gritty, dark crime stories off an assembly line for more than a decade. The book was one of Hammett’s write-so-I-can-eat works; Hammett has never been William Faulkner or John Steinbeck, you know (except when it comes to working in Hollywood; Faulkner and Steinbeck failed there too). It wasn’t designed to be original, which is why they could let a first-time director like Huston have the reins. They even covered their asses with the two most powerful women in Hollywood. Louella Parsons’ favorite dress designer, Orry-Kelly, did Astor’s outfits, and Huston cast Hedda Hopper’s son Bill (the future star of Perry Mason) in a small role. It was intended to be an assembly-line picture from the start. Its transcendence was an unintended consequence of a director/screenwriter and performers being so inspired, they took the material and ran all the way to the bank with it. This movie is a triumph of craft. That, unfortunately, causes it to lose points in that category. Damn.

In fact, I’m not certain if I should knock off points for Entertainment Value as well. The genre has become so bloated with clichés that people might watch this and think that they’re seeing just another detective movie. No, please, do not think that. What you are watching in the case of The Maltese Falcon is the ur-detective movie. As such, it’s a must-watch. So put down your copies of Chinatown and LA Confidential and take a look. It’s not only where the modern detective movie begins, it’s where the legends of John Huston and Humphrey Bogart start. And it’s a damn nice place to begin.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 8/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 48/50
FINAL SCORE: 9.5

The 50 Club’s Ratings for The Maltese Falcon
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	30/30
ACTING	30/30
ORIGINALITY	28/30
LOOK/FEEL	30/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	30/30
TOTAL POINTS	148/150

Final Analysis: Two weeks in a row! If you haven’t seen The Maltese Falcon, you’ve been cheating yourself. Make it a top priority for your viewing list.

credit: en.wikipedia.org

NORTH BY NORTHWEST

Starring Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, and James Mason
Written by Ernest Lehman
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Mike Noyes, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

When it comes to Hitchcock films it’s hard to pick a favorite, however North By Northwest would easily be in the running for that title for me. This certainly is Hitchcock at his finest. Cary Grant is flawless as Roger Thornhill, a man who is mistaken for a government agent and is forced to get involved in something he knows nothing about. Grant was a truly remarkable actor and perfect for any Hitchcock role. Perhaps that’s why he was in four of his films.

Hitchcock weaves a seamless web keeping Roger and the audience guessing to the climactic ending on Mount Rushmore. As well as being a master of storytelling Hitchcock is also a master of visuals. The scenes on Rushmore are truly breathtaking, but that scene has been talked to death.

However, one of my favorite scenes in the film is when Roger is surrounded by the enemy at an auction. If he leaves he knows they’ll take him, so Roger creates a ruckus making ridiculous bids on items, even bidding lower than the last bid! This causes the police to come and arrest him. “I thought you’d never get here,” he tells them. This scene is a flawless blend of suspense and humor and is the epitome of what Hitchcock was all about.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Tom Pandich, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

Probably the best Alfred Hitchcock film that you don’t necessarily think of right off the top of your head as a Hitchcock film, North by Northwest is without question one of the most influential dramas in American cinema history. There are several reasons why this is a perfect film.

The hallmark of Hitchcock’s best work is in the acting and here is no different. Cary Grant is fantastic here as Roger Thornhill. Sure, some of the lines he spouts out are exceptionally comical, but I guarantee that four out of five women would still swoon over them. Grant’s acting mixes a wonderful wit and humor with the seriousness of what Thornhill is going through. There’s a depth to Thornhill that is rarely seen in film.

Perhaps the best part of North by Northwest is the impeccable camera work in this film. Whether it’s the famous crop duster scene or the climactic battle on Mt. Rushmore, this film just clicks. Every shot just is so completely gripping. It’s a movie that you can pine over every shot and discover little to no imperfections (besides realizing how far blue screening has come).

North by Northwest doesn’t even rank in my top five Hitchcock films. Regardless, it is a credit to Hitchcock that he has simply made that many utterly perfect films in his powerful arsenal. The dialogue isn’t as tight as something like Strangers on a Train and the level of absurdity of this film is pretty high, but these are really just mere (and very, very minor) quibbles. North by Northwest is a perfect film that pretty much establishes what a popcorn flick should be. Without question, deserves to rank in with the other greats.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Michaelangelo McCullar, Popcorn Junkies Editor:

When one thinks of Hitchcock, one tends to think of heavy, serious thrillers. Vertigo. Psycho. Strangers on a Train. The Birds. What people seem to forget is that Hitch also had a lighter, more comedic side, evidenced by films like The Trouble With Harry and Rear Window. These films didn’t lack for suspense, but Hitch was able to brighten the mood, so that the tension slid down the audience’s throats like a glass of cool lemonade. No Hitchcock film better epitomizes this than North By Northwest, his overlooked masterpiece.

This film had all the hallmark Hitchcock elements: mistaken identity (Cary Grant as Roger Thornhill, an ad exec who the bad guys think is a spy named George Kaplan); a blonde temptress (Eva Marie Saint as double agent Eve Kendall); memorable chase scenes (the crop duster, the final chase on Mount Rushmore); and of course, the MacGuffin (a roll of microfilm containing state secrets). Hitch weaved these elements together as only he could, and the result feels almost effortless.

Which is why I think, when people discuss the greatest films of Hitchcock’s career, this one doesn’t necessarily pop to mind. It almost feels like Hitch was on cruise control here. Part of that can be attributed to the effortless charisma of Cary Grant; it feels in this film as if Cary isn’t acting as much as being Cary. But that’s what made this film work as well as it did. Grant’s Roger Thornhill is a man captured by absurd circumstances, and rather than agonize over his bad luck, he instead decides to roll with the situation and see if he can discover the spider at the heart of the web he’s ensnared in. One wonders how different the film might have been had James Stewart, Hitch’s original choice for Thornhill, had played the role. Doubtlessly the film would have had a much more serious tone, which would have made it a less effective film.

I tend to think of this film as the original popcorn flick. There’s no pomposity here. Hitch wasn’t trying to tell a weighty story. All he was trying to do was put on a cracking good show and have the audience leave with smiles on their faces. And when you see the final shot of the film, as Cary Grant pulls Eva Marie Saint off the face of Mount Rushmore and she lands in his lap on the train taking them off to their honeymoon, you can’t help but grin from ear to ear. Is North By Northwest Hitchcock’s best film? Personally, I’d say no; for me, that’ll always be Vertigo. But it is by far his most entertaining film, and a definite member of the 50 Club.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

The 50 Club’s Ratings for North By Northwest
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	30/30
ACTING	30/30
ORIGINALITY	30/30
LOOK/FEEL	30/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	30/30
TOTAL POINTS	150/150

Final Analysis: Perfect 50’s across the board. There’s no denying the fact that North By Northwest is a deserving member of The 50 Club.

credit: www.impawards.com

HALLOWEEN

Starring Jamie Lee Curtis, P.J. Soles, and Donald Pleasance
Written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill
Directed by John Carpenter

Matt Yeager, Retrograding Staff Member:

To this day Halloween is one of the most influential horror movies ever made and one of, if not the highest grossing independent movies in America. Right after the era of horror films where Hitchcock’s psychological horror reigned the time was ripe for a new style of horror, and Carpenter dragged a new type of horror into the spotlight: The Slasher flick. Spending only a third of a million dollars and grossing more than 45 million dollars in box office sales it became obvious that American audiences were ready for something new in the horror genre.

Since than Halloween has been the inspiration for a million knock-offs and horrible slasher movies. So not really all that much to brag about is there? Well without Halloween it’s not likely that studios would have green lighted such films like Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street. It’s not hard to say that a lot of modern American horror movies could trace their roots back to this film.

Being influential though isn’t really enough to consider it for the 50 Club. The movie itself though is still good, especially for the time it came out. If you’ve never seen it before it might not seem that special since it’s likely you’ve seen a movie since then that has used some of the angles and layout of the movie, but at the time it was innovative and still feels like a classic when you watch it now. Some folks might tell you that it’s mostly a homage to Hitchcock and steals camera angles from other movies like Black Christmas, but those people are heathens that should be shipped to other countries. Halloween put it all together in a package that changed the American horror landscape, and to me is worthy of being in the 50 Club.

And of course they’re remaking the movie AND Black Christmas since Hollywood can’t even think of a new plotline for what’s supposed to be the easiest of genres.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Tom Pandich, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

Ugh, this is really getting aggravating. Practically every time the 50 Club has popped up in October, we end up covering my favorite films. There’s a reason why Halloween is way, way up there on the list of the all time greats.

First of all, the music is fantastic. It has a simplistic menace to it. John Carpenter’s score adds a depth to Halloween that few scores ever do. Try watching the film on mute sometime, or the section of one of the documentaries on the 25th anniversary edition where Carpenter’s score is discussed, and you’ll understand the utter importance of this brilliant score to one of the most brilliant horror films ever.

Secondly, there’s a certain elegance to this slasher that many of the films that come after it lack. Halloween is and always has been a film where the hunt is much more important then the kill. With a film like Friday the 13th we end up counting bodies while something like Nightmare on Elm Street has us empathize with the killer much more then the victim. Usually with Halloween we care so much more about how Laurie Strode AKA Jamie Lee Curtis is going to avoid Myers then we do about who he’s knocking off next. It’s an art to make the audience sympathize with the hero in a slasher much more so then the villain.

The final perfection that Halloween accomplishes is that it is a perfectly paced film. It builds and builds to the point of absolute suspense rather then tedium. Some of the lesser known horror films that predate Halloween end up taking too long with the payoff, while those that are made after Halloween are barely given any build. Halloween strikes that wonderful balance that very few horror films accomplish.

You’ve probably seen Halloween or at least one of the sequels and have made up your mind about how unscary this film is or how you know every scene. Rewatch it sometime and look at it from a purely aesthetic viewpoint and then you’ll see what a masterwork this film truly is. I have to dock a point from originality as this film borrows rather heavily from Black Christmas but Halloween is different enough that I can still give it a solid and strong 10.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 9/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 49/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Michaelangelo McCullar, Popcorn Junkies Editor:

The movie that started it all. You a fan of Jason? He’s still on the bottom of Crystal Lake without this flick. Freddy? Never leaves dreamland without this movie. Scream? Please. What film do you think made the rules that Scream was riffing on? That’s right, kids, it’s the one, the only, Halloween.

Some folks will cry that this was just a ripoff of Black Christmas. If they say that to you, smack ‘em in the grill. If this only reason this flick was so good was it ripped off Black Christmas, then that would by necessity mean Black Christmas was a landmark flick and we’d be talking about that. Instead, it’s a footnote, an interesting piece of the puzzle, but nothing more.

What John Carpenter did with a pocketful of change and a pack of cigarettes is the inspiration for every wannabe slasher flick director around. But is that something to celebrate? I mean, we got some lousy dreck there for a while. But does one denigrate Star Wars for inspiring such lame fare as Ice Pirates? No, you don’t. Halloween is an institution, with strong performances by Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance, and caused kids to fear Bill Shatner for some strange, unnamed reason for years. John Carpenter created the temple, and 30 years later we’re still all worshipping there.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 8/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 48/50
FINAL SCORE: 9.5

The 50 Club’s Ratings for Halloween
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	30/30
ACTING	28/30
ORIGINALITY	29/30
LOOK/FEEL	30/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	30/30
TOTAL POINTS	147/150

Final Analysis: Well if you were going to predict one horror film that would make The 50 Club, Halloween would have probably been it. It’s the progenitor for a slew of teen slasher flicks, and while most of those have been mediocre to say the least, you can’t hold it against Halloween. Welcome to The 50 Club!

credit: www.impawards.com

JOHN CARPENTER’S THE THING

Starring Kurt Russell, Keith David, and Wilford Brimley
Written by Bill Lancaster
Directed by John Carpenter

Mike Noyes, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

In 1951 an enjoyable B Sci-fi film called The Thing From Another World was released. It’s an entertaining film but very flawed. Over 30 years later horror master John Carpenter decided to do a remake of this film. Not only did he completely make it his own film, he also made a truly terrifying suspenseful film as well as one of the greatest remakes ever made.

This film easily could have slipped into mediocrity at any moment and it’s the stellar acting by everyone’s part that kept that from happening. This cast is mostly unknowns led by the always-charismatic Kurt Russell. The Antarctic wasteland surrounding these men is almost a character in of itself making the feeling of claustrophobia almost unbearable.

Last but certainly not least is the special effects. When the alien first starts killing it’s one of the most horrifying monsters ever seen in film and it only gets more gruesome from there on in. While the special effects are great they aren’t the best part of the film. The alien can take the form of those it’s killed so the men can no longer trust each other. The most suspenseful moment in the film comes when Russell has all the men tied up and he’s going to test to see who the alien is.

John Carpenter brought all the elements together to make The Thing the truly terrifying film that it is. He has given us some of the finest horror films ever made and The Thing easily ranks at the top of that list.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 9/10
ORIGINALITY: 8/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 47/50
FINAL SCORE: 9.5

Mark B., Not A True Ending Staff Member:

Well, despite my absolute hatred for the video game, I love this movie. I didn’t see it when it would have been considered current to do so (I only saw it for the first time about five years ago), but even so, I still hold it in very high regard, as it’s a really solid film. The Thing is also considered by many to be one of John Carpenter’s best films, if not THE best, despite the fact that it was a bomb critically. There’s good reason for this, though; even now, over two decades after its release, it’s still a strong, powerful piece of horror cinema that holds up nicely to its more modern counterparts.

50 Club material, though? I don’t know about that. I mean, the story is very strong and well written, this is true. The air of fear is very strong throughout the film, with the characters growing to distrust everyone them know and actively growing to fear an enemy they don’t know and can’t readily identify. The film looks and feels spot-on in regards to what it’s trying to accomplish, with the arctic environment being represented quite well, and the military installation seems believable. Well, from a civilian perspective, anyhoo. The special effects, while somewhat primitive by today’s standards of CGI and such, arguably look better than anything I’ve seen come out of a computer yet. And the acting is very good, especially from one Jack Burton himself, Kurt Russell. Say what you will, when he and Carpenter got together, they made magic.

The only real criticism I can lay at the film’s feet is the fact that it’s not an original concept; it’s mildly based off of The Thing from Another World and almost directly based off of “Who Goes There?”, a short story written about the same concept. This doesn’t mean the movie isn’t good, as it is, but that does hurt the originality of the piece a bit. That taken into consideration, The Thing is still one of the best horror movies ever made, and even if it’s not 50 Club material, it’s still a damn spectacular movie.

STORY: 9/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 6/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 45/50
FINAL MOVIE SCORE: 9.0

Michaelangelo McCullar, Popcorn Junkies Editor:

Every summer my brother and I would fly from Dallas to New York City to stay with my grandparents. My grandfather was my best friend and the best man I’ve ever known. It’s because of him that I’ve got such a passionate love for film. We’d spend 3 or 4 days a week at the movie theaters, seeing every new thing that came out. One of our favorite places to see movies was The Eagle on 116th Street between 3rd and Lexington. This was back in the days when you could still smoke in theaters, and we’d sit in the balcony watching the newest flick as the haze from the cigarettes wafted into our view.

It was there that he took me to see John Carpenter’s The Thing. Now you may be wondering why the hell someone would take their 9-year old grandson to see a movie like that, but it was because I’d begged him to see it. I’d seen the commercials and was hyped to catch the film. Well, you can guess what happened, as I spent most of the film cowering in my chair, covering my eyes with my arms. My grandfather was pissed that he had spent his money on a film he’d warned me I wouldn’t like, and that was the end of any scary films that summer.

Fast forward 24 years. John Carpenter’s firmly entrenched in my pantheon of favorite directors. My DVD library is littered with copies of every film he’s made that’s available, and I’ve watched them all several times. I’m of the firm opinion that The Thing is the greatest horror movie ever made. It ratchets up the tension from the opening title burning on the screen, and keeps turning it up until by the final shot of the film you’re a squirming pile of goo. Which one is the Thing, MacReady or Childs? Are neither of them the Thing? Will they freeze to death? You’ll never know, but it’s one of the all-time classic closing scenes.

The only thing keeping this out of the 50 Club is that it’s a remake. Granted, it’s one of the greatest remakes of all time, but it’s still just enough of a ding to prevent it from entry. But I don’t care. You can have your Night of the Living Dead and your Evil Dead and your Exorcist. Give me The Thing every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 9/10
ORIGINALITY: 8/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 47/50
FINAL SCORE: 9.5

The 50 Club’s Ratings for John Carpenter’s The Thing
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	29/30
ACTING	28/30
ORIGINALITY	22/30
LOOK/FEEL	30/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	30/30
TOTAL POINTS	139/150

Final Analysis: Had this film not been a remake, it would have graced the exalted gates of The 50 Club. Sadly, its lack of originality was just enough to deny it entry. Still, it’s definitely superior to the original and should be at or near the top of your Halloween viewing list.

credit: www.impawards.com

SUSPIRIA

Starring Jessica Harper, Stefania Casini, and Flavio Bucci
Written by Dario Argento and Daria Nicolodi
Directed by Dario Argento

Tom Pandich, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

Suspiria is my favorite horror film of all time, bar none. It utterly pains me to say it isn’t a perfect film though. Suspiria is a brilliant film. A spectacular looking film. A truly different film. It has the greatest soundtrack ever in any horror film, and it is as beautiful as it is scary.

So what makes it less then perfect? Well two things. First off, the film’s acting is a bit off. This is mostly because many of the actors in this film were originally Italian and fed English lines to create an English film. It’d be like asking Jennifer Aniston to film a movie completely in Swahili without ever knowing a word of it. Suspiria is slightly marred because of this.

The other aspect that hurts Suspiria is the ending. The film just sort of ends. Suspiria reaches a fantastic climax and then the credits just sort of end. Dario Argento’s masterpiece has no real resolution. Suspiria is in desperate need of an epilogue after the film’s climax. Instead we end up with a great film that just sort of ends.

Ok then. I’m a moron. Don’t take my criticism as a reason not to see this film. Suspiria is a truly excellent film that every person (film lover, horror lover, or just regular Joe Schmoe) should see. It is so utterly different then everything else out there on the market. It’s one of my five favorite horror films of all time. Suspiria just isn’t perfect.

STORY: 9/10
ACTING: 8/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 47/50
FINAL SCORE: 9.5

Travis Leamons, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

While in college, one of the classes I attended was called “Literature and the Supernatural”. The class was a breeze, full of short stories by horrormeisters Shirley Jackson and Stephen King. But this is trivial when compared to the two moments I most remember. One is when I contradicted the professor when she said there are no strong female characters in horror cinema. She ate her words after I made mention of Sigourney Weaver in Alien.

The other moment was my presentation on the film Suspiria. Each student was allowed to pick a horror movie in which to do a five-minute presentation. So while others went with more mainstream titles, like Texas Chain Saw Massacre, I thought a little diversity was in order.

Many regard Suspiria as Dario Argento’s masterpiece. No arguments here, though my knowledge of his directorial work is small. The story’s premise sounds simple enough: A young American dancer travels to Europe to attend a famous ballet school. Along the way, she sees a young woman, who appears to be fleeing from the school. Overlooking this disturbance, she tries to settle in at the ballet school, but eventually starts to discover that strange things are going on. And it isn’t men in leotards.

Like Hitchcock, Argento is a master of visual imagery. In an age of DTMs (dead teenager movies), it’s refreshing to see an elaborate death sequence that doesn’t rely on sudden visual shocks. The murder scene near the beginning – and a scene I played in its entirety during my presentation – has a prevailing affect on the viewer. Imagine seeing Janet Leigh in the shower for the very first time. Yeah, it’s kind of like that. Argento’s work may not come accompanied with a Bernard Hermann score, but it does have a unique soundtrack by the Italian progressive rock band Goblin.

Despite sporting a set design with a vivid array of colors, the biggest drawback of Suspiria comes with originality and, in lesser regard, acting. The story is pretty simplistic when you think about it: Bad tidings at a ballet academy. Without the visual flair of Argento’s directing, or Goblin’s impressive soundtrack, this could have easily been a campy horror film.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 7/10
ORIGINALITY: 8/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 45/50
FINAL SCORE: 9

Michaelangelo McCullar, Popcorn Junkies Editor:

When I decided to make October Horror Movie Month, it was with the curiosity of seeing just what it is that makes horror films great. Let’s face it, horror films are the backwards cousins of the film community, disrespected as a true art form. But I dare anyone to watch Suspiria and come back to tell me that it isn’t a work of art. Dario Argento’s masterpiece is sumptuous to look at, and may be the best example in its genre of how important the proper mood is to a great scary flick.

Dario achieves this mood through both his visual palette and the soundtrack provided by Italian prog rock band Goblin. This potent combination succeeds in putting asses on the edge of seats. But Dario doesn’t stop there, as he ups the gore quotient to a squirm level maybe only surpassed by Peter Jackson’s early work. There’s no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Suspiria belongs squarely in the mix of any conversation of Greatest Horror Film of All Time.

But, this isn’t about whether it’s a great horror flick. This is about if it’s 50 Club worthy. And, alas, I’m afraid to say it isn’t. First, the story is functional, but it really only exists to create situations for Argento to get his freak on with the audience. And the acting is mediocre, to put it kindly. It also takes a bit of a ding in the Originality department, but not a big one, as witches are a staple of the horror genre, but Dario was able to do some unique things that elevate the film above where it might have ranked in that category.

50 Club material? Sorry, but that answer is no. Great horror flick? Hell, yes!

STORY: 6/10
ACTING: 6/10
ORIGINALITY: 8/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 40/50
FINAL MOVIE SCORE: 8

The 50 Club’s Ratings for Suspiria
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	25/30
ACTING	21/30
ORIGINALITY	26/30
LOOK/FEEL	30/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	30/30
TOTAL POINTS	132/150

Final Analysis: No conversation about the greatest horror film of all time is complete without discussing Dario Argento’s Suspiria. Sadly, though, it’s not 50 Club quality.

credit: en.wikipedia.org

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

Starring Duane Jones, Judith O’Dea, and Karl Hardman
Written by John A. Russo and George A. Romero
Directed by George A. Romero

Tom Pandich, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

Night of the Living Dead is one of the few horror movies that can claim that it has a greater message then well executed scares and a general sense of creepiness. The subtle, brutal discussion of race in the United States during the 1960s and 70s that is all too apparent by the end of this film is both provocative and unexpected. It goes without saying that this film is one of the most brilliant pieces of horror ever made despite the microscopic budget.

Out of everything in Night of the Living Dead, the pressure in the film is really what overwhelms the viewer. The monsters are slow, witless, and almost completely without power. It is their number that makes them so threatening. The simplicity of the threat makes things even more hair raising. On the surface, the zombies can simply be walked past. They have very little power if reason, logic, and rationality are used in dealing with them. Unfortunately for our protagonists (and Americans in general) this is in short supply as each and every character has their own agenda.

What has always been most striking about Night of the Living Dead is how bold the story actually is. The film’s heroine is insane within the first ten minutes. The film’s hero is a drifter, a thief, and a black man back when being black carried a lot more hardships then it does today (not saying that there isn’t hardships for African Americans today, but they are far greater in where this film takes place). The violence of this film for the time is also striking. It’s really a progressive film in terms of both aesthetics and story telling.

Night of the Living Dead is one of the few flawless horror films ever made. Equally surprising is the fact that its remake almost equals the greatness of the original from a pure thematic stand point. There’s no question that it is a “perfect” film.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Mike Noyes, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

Night Of The Living Dead is an amazing movie for many reasons. No, it was not the first zombie movie (I’m looking your way White Zombie, 1932, starring Bela Lugosi!) but it did completely redefine what a zombie was. Up until this point all zombie movies used the Voodoo school of thought that a body could be brought back to life and used as a slave. I also think it’s interesting to note that not once in Living Dead are the referred to as zombies.

I remember the first time I saw this film. I was in high school. It was a Saturday afternoon and I was sitting in my living room watching it by myself. This movie scared the crap out of me! It has one of the best openings to a movie. The young couple visiting the grave of a dead loved one. Then suddenly out of nowhere a man attacks them, they don’t even know what happening at first. Then the girl’s brother is dead and she is on her own. You’re thrown right into the action and the horror without any explanation. And once the group has boarded themselves up in the house it becomes very claustrophobic which really adds to the intensity of the film.

The other think that’s really great about this movie is the underlying message. Sure it’s a bunch of people stuck in a house trying to survive a zombie attack. However, one of the people happens to be black and he happens to be the most pro-active person in the house. Well, there are some people in the house who aren’t so keen to having a black man telling them what to do. Again, it’s not all spelled out for you but that’s why this film is a classic. The struggle between the people is the major driving force of the film here making it a film about race as well about zombies.

The acting in the film isn’t the best, but for being a low budge B-film it’s pretty damn good. Also, for the budge Romero had, about $114,000, the films looks great. The zombies are believable and kid zombies are always creepy. What makes all of Romero’s zombie films so great is that the zombies are just the setting for the film; they are always about something bigger.

The only movie that might come close to knocking Living Dead off the best zombie movie ever pedestal is Lucio Fulci’s 1979 film Zombi 2. Which, interestingly enough, was called Zombi 2 because in Italy Dawn Of The Dead was called Zombi and Fulci wanted to capitalize on its popularity.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 8/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 48/50
FINAL SCORE: 9.5

John Cavanagh, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

Being the first week of October I suppose it’s only right that we start the month off with quite possibly the best zombie film ever made. Night of the Living Dead is a classic, I’ll just put that out there right now. I freely admit to this being one of my personal favorites and has become a must see title every Halloween. I still get the creeps just thinking about the cramped claustrophobic house, that sense of no hope and wanting only to live through the night.

But does it hold up to our 50 point system?

Sitting down to write about it with the scoring system in consideration, there are undeniable flaws that keep it from being a film that gets 10’s across the board. The most obvious flaw in the film is the amateur acting that, while giving it a sense of realism, still sticks out like a sore thumb in many parts.

The Gobo lighting used during the dark scenes where the lights are out certainly adds to the films mood and atmosphere, in turn giving it a very unique feel. But this technique is only used for a small portion of the film, and once the characters find out how to turn the lights on, it loses much of its style and makes the movie look a bit substandard.

Now with entertainment, I’ve already covered that, I wouldn’t have watched this thing as many times as I have if I didn’t think it had enough credence for more than one viewing. The story is perhaps the films greatest attribute, before Night there were no real “zombie” movies. There were ghouls, but to the best of my knowledge it was the first to ever have the living dead with a hunger for human flesh. Hell, the film never even once calls them zombies, ghouls, or any other term, but there is no denying that this movie revolutionized modern horror films and opened up a whole new genre. If that doesn’t speak for the story or its originality, I don’t know what does.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 7/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 7/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 44/50
FINAL MOVIE SCORE: 9

The 50 Club’s Ratings for Night of the Living Dead
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	30/30
ACTING	25/30
ORIGINALITY	30/30
LOOK/FEEL	27/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	30/30
TOTAL POINTS	142/150

Final Analysis: Night of the Living Dead is arguably one of the most influential films ever made, horror or not. But sadly, it comes up just shy of the rarified 50 Club air. Still, whenever you talk greatest horror films of all time, this has to be in the mix.

credit: en.wikipedia.org

DR. STRANGELOVE, OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB

Starring Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, and Slim Pickens
Written by Terry Southern
Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Mike Noyes, Popcorn Junkies Staff Member:

What makes this movie so brilliant is the transition from the subtlety in the beginning to the complete absurdity of the ending. It happens in such a way that you don’t even realize it till you hear the famous words, “You can’t fight in here, this is the war room!” and then you know. But you’re laughing so hard that your not even thing about it that way. You can’t think that way about this film until it’s long over, cause while you’re watching it: you’re hooked.

How does such a genius comedy come about? First you start with a brilliant book written by Peter George called Red Alert (if you can find it, it’s totally worth a read). Then you filter Peter George’s humor and political satire through Stanley Kubrick’s script. Next you put together one of the greatest ensemble casts the silver screen has ever seen: Peter Sellers (in three rolls!), George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, Slim Pickens and add throw in a young James Earl Jones for flavor. Put it all in Stanley Kubrick’s masterful directorial hands and cinematic history is born.

To pick out a favorite performance in this film is near impossible. First we have Peter Sellers in three hilarious rolls: the timid Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, the annoyed President Merkin Muffley, and the eccentric Dr. Strangelove. Each of these characters is so developed and so unique that it takes a moment to even realize that they are in fact that same actor. Then there is George C. Scott as the energetic General “Buck” Turgidson who steals every scene he’s in. Finally we have the certifiably insane Brig. General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden). When he gives his speech about the “communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluid,” you want to believe it!

There is no denying that this film is an intelligent satire on the state of the government back in the 60’s. However, watching it now, with the world in the state it is in, makes the film seem more relevant than ever. This is truly a timeless film that will leave people howling with laughter for eons to come.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

Misha, Retrograding Staff Member:

Of all the genres in film, satire is probably the hardest one to do right. Finding the right mix of comedy and commentary, with meanings overt enough to be obvious, yet subtle enough as to require some work from the audience. Dr. Strangelove is an example of how to do it right.

At first glance, nuclear war is not exactly an ideal topic for a comedy, but luckily for us, the script was more than up to the task. The story goes that Strangelove was supposed to be a serious film, but when Kubrick and his co-writers sat down to do the screenplay, they came to the conclusion that the entire thing (particularly the then-prevailing doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction) was so farcical that even if you tried to play it straight, it would come out comedic. So they elected to go down the black comedy route, which they did with wit, intellect and style. The characters are essentially caricatures, but somehow, they manage to come off as more ‘real’ than they have any right to be; in particular, the three main American military characters (General Ripper, General Turgidson and Major Kong) who, through their rampant paranoia and borderline insanity, come across as people to be pitied, rather than reviled. I have no doubt that in the hands of a lesser man than Kubrick, the pathos element would have been utterly lost.

But what makes the film is, of course, Peter Sellers, filling three different roles. As the US President, a British Air Force officer and (most memorably) an ex-Nazi scientist with ‘alien hand’ issues, he almost single-handedly anchors the film. Seeing one person play such completely different roles in the space of one movie is a revelation, and truly shows off the man’s immense talent. The titular Doctor, in particular, is played to wonderful effect, a man seemingly more alien than human; his otherworldliness is in contrasted to the Russian ambassador, who’s very much like the Americans, but is separated from them by the largely arbitrary gulf of political ideology.

Finally, as with any of Kubrick’s films, of course, there’s enough layers to keep film students in dissertations until Doomsday; juxtaposing sexual imagery with dark-comic observations, likening Cold War military strategies to some sort of international Freudian nightmare is just one of them. This is one of those films you could pick through with a fine-toothed comb and *still* not get everything out of it. There’s far too few films like that these days, and it’s just one of the reasons why this film deserves to join The 50 Club.

STORY: 9/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 9/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 9/10
TOTAL POINTS: 47/50
FINAL SCORE: 9.5

Eric Szulczewski, IWC Godfather:

“What’s your favorite Kubrick movie?” is like a Rorschach test for film fans. If it’s 2001, you’re a trippy-dippy or like to pretend you’re a deep thinker. If it’s Barry Lyndon, you’re a chick or an incurable romantic. If it’s Full Metal Jacket (invariably qualified by “…but only the first half”), you’ve either never been in the military, or you have and it’s screwed you up for life. If it’s A Clockwork Orange, you’re a sick f*ck (but in a good way). If it’s The Shining, you’re a Nicholson fanboy. If it’s Spartacus, you like gladiator movies. If it’s Eyes Wide Shut, seek mental help immediately. If it’s Lolita or Paths of Glory, the drinks are on me.

So what does it say if your favorite Kubrick flick is Doctor Strangelove? That you’re a person of ineffable taste like I am. It’s not only Kubrick’s best, but possibly the greatest film of the Sixties. Of course, we are talking about the Sixties. If Bonnie and Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Easy Rider hadn’t come along, it’d be a tussle between this film, The Apartment, Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf, and My Fair Lady. That isn’t saying much.

(Okay, Memo To McCullar: are you going to have the balls to put up Virginia Woolf for the 50 Club one of these days? I know we’re booked until the end of the year (and, yes, Popcorn Junkies fanboys, I will be doing a 50 Club in November, so be warned), but this one deserves to be considered. All of these kiddies who think Brangelina’s something should be exposed to Liz and Dick, the Ultimate Hollywood Power Couple. Unlike Brangelina, they had the clout to get Hollywood studios to put up money to adapt Shakespeare, Edward Albee, and Tennessee Williams.)

Yes, we here at IP are a bunch of Kubrick fanboys. Witness the nom de electronic plume of one Scott Sawitz for all the proof you need. Virtually every one of his films are up for 50 Club consideration. He was an undeniably great filmmaker, as well as being a complete head case to boot. He’s one of those directors, like Eisenstein, Lubitsch, and Wilder, that historians five hundred years from now (as well as today) will hold up as being “art”, whatever that may be. So if you think there’s too many Kubrick films under discussion in this feature, you’re the one with the problem, not us.

So what makes Doctor Strangelove a cut above one of the greatest cinematic collections of any director ever? Mostly because it’s the one film where Kubrick got it all together. It works on multiple levels, and anyone can derive enjoyment from any of them. The problem here is categorization. Yes, it’s a comedy. That much is obvious. But what type? On its face, it’s a parody, specifically one of Fail-Safe, the most paranoid of the Cold War films. It definitely has its farcical elements, but as farce, it doesn’t rank up there with any of the works of Jacques Tati or Jerry Lewis. It mostly lies in that most difficult of genres to convey on film: satire. And what it satirizes makes it one of the most daring films ever made.

Remember, this film was made in 1964. No one back then made fun of the President of the United States, or the US military, or the Cold War. The office of the president was still respected (okay, so Johnson started the downward slide and Nixon completed it, but it was only beginning in 1964). The US military was still the group that won WWII; the debacle of Vietnam wasn’t evident yet. The Cold War…hey, the entire planet lived in fear of bombs being dropped on their heads and all life being extinguished. They were all targets in Doctor Strangelove.

It definitely helped to have the best satirist of his era around to help do the screenplay. Terry Southern’s genius isn’t much recognized today, since he was very much a product of his time. But what work he left us. Candy, The Cincinnati Kid, The Magic Christian, and Easy Rider are all his (okay, the film version of Candy sucked, but read the book, which will have you constantly belly-laughing). He did the screenplay for Barbarella, an achievement that we appreciate more today knowing how hard it is to adapt a comic into a big-screen work moreso than in his time. His sense of humor was an influence on contemporaries like Tom Wolfe and Hunter Thompson. He knew how to make something funny, a talent that he developed growing up in the middle of nowhere in Texas. And in this one, he used his abilities as the modern Jonathan Swift to their fullest.

Southern, with the help of Kubrick and Peter George, the English author of the original book (who ended up committing suicide two years after the film was released), went right for the heart of American machismo and American pride, and hit the target square. Everything that Americans prided themselves on were shown to be ludicrous. The image of the military and of the American fighting man, the “arsenal of freedom”, the decisiveness of the leadership, the will to succeed…all exposed to the light of truth. For those knee-jerk Reaganesque super-patriots out there, it’s still painful to watch today (it offended a lot of those people in its day, including Reagan himself).

The real brilliance, though, is when Southern goes Freudian, mixing the act of war with psychosexual implications (a recurring theme in his work). Don’t believe me? The names give the game away: Jack D. Ripper, Strangelove, Mandrake, Merkin Muffley, Turgidson, Ambassador de Sadesky (and I won’t even talk about the credit sequence, which is so obvious it hurts). He even goes a little scatological with Colonel Guano. The message is clear: war is just another way for guys to get off, and nuclear war is the biggest orgasm of them all. Anyone who’s ever had a look at Dubbaya when he’s talking about Iraq in a press conference understands this.

Enough about the message, though. What about the performances? Yes, it’s definitely regarded as one of Peter Sellers’ greatest works, and for good reason. It’s hard enough to pull off one vivid character in a film. Sellers pulls off two with President Muffley and Doctor Strangelove himself (Strangelove, by the way, is a blending of two people: the wheelchair-bound deep-thinking scientist John Von Neumann and the still-at-Harvard-at-the-time Henry Kissinger); his Group Captain Mandrake is really a non-entity, not given much else to do other than to figure out General Ripper’s plan. Sellers would have been served letting someone else play Mandrake, but it’s the biggest role in the film, and thus the proper location for the biggest star in the film. Sellers’ performances, though, mean nothing without a supporting cast that’s equally phenomenal. Sterling Hayden steals the film as General Ripper; this was the role that made his obituary and deserved to (and to be fair, Sellers let him do it by underplaying Mandrake; that was the real genius of Sellers in that role, to know that his co-star has the meat of the script and to let him go to town, something a performer with a greater ego would have resisted). If Hayden hadn’t already stolen the film, Peter Bull would have as the Russian ambassador. This was the best role of Bull’s five-decade career, and it’s a shame that he remained a minor player that would be remembered as more of an influence for the Pythons and the Goodies than as a performer in his own right. This movie was George C. Scott’s dress rehearsal for what he’d do as Patton; Buck Turgidson is the base cliché upon which every American army officer in a comedy up to this day is built on. It’s as emblematic as an Adolphe Menjou sophisticate, a Rudy Valentino mysterious lover, or a Marilyn blonde bombshell. Slim Pickens, meanwhile, is in his own movie, and rightfully so, because he deserved to be the star here. It gets to the point where you just want to throw out the rest of the movie and watch Major Kong for the next two hours. The only comic actor I can remember off the top of my head who did anything like that was Jack Oakie in The Great Dictator. And those are just the highlights. Except for Sellers and Scott, everyone in this film reached a career peak here, and under Kubrick’s guidance, blended impeccably into the perfect plot and script that they were given.

(By the way, Kubrick provided another breakthrough: in 1964, the fact that there were blacks in the US military seemed to be a great secret kept from Hollywood. But in the opening scene, take a look in the cockpit of Kong’s bomber, and there’s a young, pre-stardom, James Earl Jones as Just Another Member Of The Crew. At a time when the civil rights movement was making its greatest strides, that was a powerful statement.)

Do me a favor and listen to the score of the film. Obviously, as a huge fan of The Avengers, I am completely in love with the work of Laurie Johnson. He provides a great deal of the atmosphere that enables the film to stride the thin line that separates the genres that it straddles. He’s just one of the many great movie scorers who came out of TV in the Sixties (John Williams being the most famous). That subject isn’t normally discussed among film fans, by the way. It’s almost as if they’re ashamed that so many great scores had their origins in television.

It’s the little moments that make this film, though. Any self-respecting film fan knows them. Slim Pickens riding the bomb, “precious bodily fluids”, “Gentlemen, there’s no fighting in the War Room!”, the War Room itself, Doctor Strangelove’s arm attempting a Nazi salute and his references to the president as “fuehrer”. If you’ve never seen the film before, you think you’d had, because these moments have become part of our culture. That makes it difficult to do an objective analysis. Of course, its power overrides that. There’s a reason why the normally retarded voters over at iMDB has this film in its Top 20 Greatest Of All Time (retarded because they’ve got Citizen Kane, Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, Lawrence of Arabia, and Sunset Boulevard sitting between 20 and 30 instead of in the Top 10 where they belong). This film has impact. That impact simply can’t be divorced from any kind of rational consideration of the film.

That’s why Doctor Strangelove is getting a perfect score across the board from me. Its impact hasn’t died with time. Vietnam and Iraq made it even more relevant even as the Cold War died, and we’re now in a time where we wish we had someone like Muffley in the White House. It’s a piece of history, but one that’s still living. That’s something that can’t be said for any of Kubrick’s other works, even A Clockwork Orange. That’s why it’s the greatest film of one of the greatest directors ever, and that’s why it’s going to be a member of the 50 Club.

STORY: 10/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 50/50
FINAL SCORE: 10

The 50 Club’s Ratings for Dr. Strangelove
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	29/30
ACTING	30/30
ORIGINALITY	29/30
LOOK/FEEL	30/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	29/30
TOTAL POINTS	147/150

Final Analysis: Well, most of the Readers’ Choice picks failed to make 50 Club muster, but the final selection makes it in. One of the greatest satirical films ever made, Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a worthy 50 Club member.

credit: www.impawards.org

MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL

Starring Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin
Written by Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin
Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones

Misha, Retrograding Staff Member:

Dan Brown can take his lumbering prose and stick it up his own Conspiracy Theory; the *real* story of the Holy Grail starts and ends here, in a whirlwind of swallows, coconuts and Vorpal Bunnies.

Right from the start, the Pythons had always been interested in the idea of making films, and although the Flying Circus was, at the time, stating to show some ‘cracks in the airframe’, the team managed to put animosity aside during the break between the third and fourth series just long enough to create their first full-length feature film. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was the result.

The spoof genre is well-trodden ground, but, as ever, the Pythons managed to take an idea, twist it to illogical extremes, and create something innovative. Packed to the gills with their trademarked off-the-wall, ridiculously-quotable humour, whilst delivering subversive satirical observations on topic as broad as politics, xenophobia and gender roles.

Graham Chapman is in fine form as Arthur, playing the closest thing to a straight man, surrounded by a myriad of bizarre creatures and characters who have since passed into pop-cultural firmament; Tim the Enchanter, The Black Knight, the vicious Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog, and The Knights Who Say ‘Ni!’ to name but a few. There are few films in existence that have permeated popular culture as thoroughly as MP&THG.

But, of course, there’s so much more. Quite simply, Holy Grail is one of the funniest films ever made. From the opening shots, with Arthur and his coconut-clopping ’steed’ Patsy, all the way through to the climactic battle to storm the Tower of France, there’s a multitude of laughs to be had, even on repeat screenings (hang on… Tower = Tour… Tour de France? Dammit! I can’t believe I didn’t spot that joke before now! Just goes to prove my own point, I suppose).

You might argue that there’s not much overarching plot, and you’d be right - But when the film’s this good, there doesn’t need to be. Any overall arc does what it does (gets us to the next set-piece) perfectly.

In short, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a comedic cinematic tour-de-force, imitated by many, but never matched or bettered (depending on your opinion only by its ’sister film’, The Life Of Brian).

STORY: 9/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 10/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 49/50
FINAL MOVIE SCORE: 10

Mark B., Not A True Ending Staff Member:

Jesus. What can you say about Holy Grail that hasn’t been said in the three decades since it was released? It’s a classic comedy film, arguably the best Python film ever made, and a piece of Monty Python history that’s incessantly quoted by fans around the world to this day. There are action figures available, and you can buy the Killer Rabbit (and for that matter, the Holy Hand Grenade) to decorate your home with. You can walk into Target and buy shirts with Holy Grail quotes on them for God’s sake (I know, I did)!

All of that gushing might be a bit much, but there was a point there: Holy Grail has held up. It’s still around. And if anything, it’s more popular than ever before. Why? Partly because it wreaks havoc on familiar concepts; nearly everyone knows who King Arthur is, what he did, and what he tried to do in regards to the Holy Grail. Lampooning that is surprisingly comedic, and works really well. It’s also partly because the Python guys managed to avoid the trap most British comedies fall into: it wasn’t too British. Sure, the whole “Watery tart – Moist bint” exchange reeks of Brit humor, but the Black Knight battle and the “Knights who say Ni” sketches are riotous even if you have zero appreciation for British humor. The movie takes great pains to be absurd, to the point that you can’t help but laugh at the absurdity of it all. And of course, it certainly helps that the MP guys are totally game and deliver what are quite possibly the performances of their career.

The bottom line is this: if you’ve never seen Holy Grail, you should. It start a troupe of British comedians who do mostly British humor starring in a movie about an imaginary British king in Britain, but even if you hate “Are You Being Served”, you can still laugh at this. It’s one of the greatest comedy movies of all time, one of the greatest spoofs of all time, and it still manages to be funny three decades later when some movies can’t even manage that after three years. I can’t say it any simpler than that.

STORY: 8/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 8/10
LOOK/FEEL: 10/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 46/50
FINAL SCORE: 9

Ryan Closs, Popcorn Junkies Reviewer:

I love this movie. I can say without reservation that it’s one of my favourite comedies of all time, I even drove 6 hours from Montreal to Toronto in order to see the stage version. That said it’s not my favourite Monty Python movie (Life of Brian holds that spot). But that’s only because Brain had a slightly more coherent plot.

The story is a retelling of King Arthur and his grail quest. Names aside there is pretty much nothing in common with the original story and that’s fine by me. It’s really just an excuse to string together as many medieval sketches as they could the vast majority of which are so funny I almost pee. The acting is excellent, no the actors aren’t believable as Sir Robin and Sir Launcelot but they’re not supposed to be, all of the python’s are experts at what they do and what they do best is sketch comedy. Every actor will tell you the hardest thing to do well is comedy, and no one does comedy better than these 6 men. The look of the movie is clearly extremely low budget, they use the same castle from different angles to portray different castles, the costumes and special effects are laughable and all in all it looks like crap. The look of it however unlike most crappy looking movies adds to the charm. This isn’t like Alone in the Dark where the special effects are so bad they make a wretched movie even worse.

As for entertainment value there are extremely few movies that are more entertaining that this. The comedy is brilliant, the timing is excellent and aside from the loose plot it’s almost perfect in every respect.

STORY: 8/10
ACTING: 10/10
ORIGINALITY: 7/10
LOOK/FEEL: 7/10
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 10/10
TOTAL POINTS: 42/50
FINAL SCORE: 8.5

The 50 Club’s Ratings for Monty Python and the Holy Grail
CATEGORY	RATING(OUT OF 30)
STORY	25/30
ACTING	30/30
ORIGINALITY	27/30
LOOK/FEEL	27/30
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE	30/30
TOTAL POINTS	139/150

Final Analysis: Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes up just shy of 50 Club membership. But there’s absolutely no argument that it’s one of the funniest movies ever made. It’s just not quite 50 Club material.