In a nutshell: Basic Instinct

The basis of this article -- and those that follow -- is to illustrate, parody and make fun of a scene, scenes or an entire movie. Most likely, the parodies will be about nudity or sex because -- quite frankly -- those are often times the funniest scenes in film.

So... Here's how "Basic Instinct" works.

 

Basically, Sharon Stone is brought in for interrogation because her character is suspected of murder. So she puts on a slinky dress and the rest is cinematic history as she uncrosses her legs baring it for all to see and the guy who played Newman gets so hot and bothered he decides to go get a Diet Coke. But instead he shuts down all the electricity at a theme park on a remote South American island, thus letting loose thousands of dinosaurs who attack and kill the humans on said island. All because Sharon Stone spread her legs in an interrogation...

OK, not really. But Wayne Knight gets about as sweaty as the time Wilfred Brimley turned the heat up on him in "Seinfeld" for refusing to deliver mail. Instead, the guy who really needed to watch out was Michael Douglas in this film as he was busy fucking Sharon Stone AND Jeanne Tripplehorn -- and the latter was trying to kill him, while disguised as Sharon Stone.

"OMG! What an amazing movie!?" you say? Yeah. No.

The problem is Paul Verhoeven makes shitty movies. The plots typically suck. And the only reason anyone really watches his films is A.) nudity, B.) simulated sex scenes, C.) hot actresses showing their breasts and D.) hot actresses showing their breasts while having simulated sex. Aside from the novelty of seeing Sharon Stone spread her legs when you're a horny teenager, who gives a fuck? The overall film is terrible. 

But then again, what do you expect from the director who brought you shit sandwiches like "Robocop," "Showgirls," and "Basic Instinct 2"?

OMG! An epic Adam actually likes...

Ben-Hur (1959)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★ (out of 5)

Director: William Wyler

Rated: none. 212 min.

No. 72 on AFI 100

No. 100 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 154 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Charlton Heston,
Jack Hawkins

"Ben-Hur": No. 72 on AFI 100; No. 100 on AFI 100 (2008);
No. 154 on IMDB Top 250

I typically don’t have a lot of nice things to say about epic films. Mostly, I feel that they are a waste of money and the majority of the film’s notoriety comes from its big budget, the press and publicity surrounding the film’s release – especially in the old days before CGI animation because of the number of people it took to make the movie and then of course elaborate set designs and costumes.

Also, I dislike most epics because it seems like they are a dime a dozen. If Hollywood wasn’t busy pumping out low-budget, B-movie quality westerns and other movies that were forgotten by the wayside in the late 1940s and 1950s, then they were making epic films which survived and gained notoriety because by comparison, they were better.

Not so with this film, though.

I really like this movie. Sure, it has its prerequisite epic cheesiness. But Charlton Heston shows his acting chops in this movie. I prefer him in “Planet of the Apes,” but he plays badass Judah Ben-Hur and he’s super bad ass in this movie. He’s rich, but as a Hebrew he is sold into slavery. He doesn’t complain. In a “Gladiator” like move, he becomes a gladiator himself, rises up and makes his way back home to confront his boyhood friend and betrayer. And the action and some of the scenes in this film are simply amazing – even if they are kind of hokey (like the scene where he gives Jesus water while Jesus is carrying the cross; it was like, “Yeah, right… that happened.”). In a lot of ways, the film is very much like my other favorite epic from this period, “Spartacus.”

The chariot race of course is the scene stealer in this movie. Watching Ben-Hur and his boyhood friend turned nemesis Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins) duke it out in a two-wheel cart being dragged by horses is what sets this epic apart from the rest.

Overall, it was a good story and Wyler got his main characters to deliver in the acting department. The sets, the costumes, everything was believable.

Vanity Fair's "Magnificent Obsession"

This article says way more about the film, "The Magnificent Ambersons" than I could ever hope to say. I would really hope some negatives could be found one day of this movie in its 132-minute format and that Criterion could possibly release the film so that it is available on a quality DVD and not some rag tag Korean bootleg.

The Vanity Fair article, "Magnificent Obsession" can be found here.

Raging Snooze

Raging Bull  (1980)

Adam’s rating: ★★1/2  (out of 5)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Rated: R. 129 min.

No. 24 on AFI 100

No. 4 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 75 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Robert DeNiro,
Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent

"Raging Bull": No. 24 on AFI 100;
No. 4 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 75 on IMDB 250

I generally like Martin Scorsese’s films, even when everyone else doesn’t. Among family members, I’m one of the few that like “Casino,” I really liked “Goodfellas,” and I love everything he’s done in the last decade. And I’m a big fan of “Taxi Driver,” even if it is a bit over-rated.

But I strongly dislike “Raging Bull.”

I think the best word to summarize how I feel is “over-rated.”

For a long time before I had first seen the film, all I heard was people saying, “Have you seen ‘Raging Bull? Have you seen it?’ And it’s possible that the hype from friends raised my expectations a bit. It’s also possible that had I seen the film when I really started to get into movies as a young adult, I might actually think differently of it.

I was completely underwhelmed. And I hate the story.

I realize that it’s a biography and there is not much you can change. But the story of Jake LaMotta, while unique to him and for the time period it is set in, is nothing all that new. For what it’s worth, it’s my impression that with the exception of Muhammad Ali and a select number of other fighters, that all boxers rise to the top of their game at some point and when they’ve reached that pinnacle and finally are no longer the champ, something spirals out of control.

It comes as no surprise that a boxer is violent by nature and that the violence might possibly lead to estrangement from one’s wife, children and other family members. Add drugs and alcohol to the mix as they might turn to these substances to curb the depression of being knocked so far down from their pedestal and you have a recipe for disaster.

Excuse me, but this story is one of no shit, Sherlock.

But don’t take away from Scorsese, DeNiro and Pesci. The acting is superb; it’s believable and the techniques and some of the elements of the film are tremendous. The choice to shoot this in black and white was a fine one and the results are perfect. This film is filled with rich blacks and shadows throughout and it accentuates the overall feel to the film and is worth watching for this fact alone.

Do the Right Thing. Watch this movie to complete your list ... even if it's bad.

Do the Right Thing (1989)

Adam’s rating: ★★★  (out of 5)

Director: Spike Lee

Rated: R. 120 min.

Not on AFI 100

No. 96 on AFI 100 reissue

Not on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Danny Aiello, Spike Lee,
John Turturro, Martin Lawrence,
Samuel L. Jackson, Rosie Perez,

"Do the Right Thing": No. 96 on AFI 100 (2008);
Criterion No. 97 

It’s been years since I’ve seen this film. We watched it once – and that’s really all it took – in a college sociology class. And, while the film left a good impression, I liked it enough to give it a three-star rating but I’m not absolutely in love with it either.

The film has a good message about race and racism at a time when “racial harmony” was being preached extensively – and considering it was only a few years before the L.A. riots, despite the fact the film is based in New York, the message sent by this movie was a good eye-opener for white America, which I think often times overlooked black people’s argument.

I’d like to think that 20 years later, we’re in a better situation and that we’ve come closer to following Rodney King’s advice of “Can’t we all just get along?” but I don’t know if we have?

Say what you will about Spike Lee’s “joints;” most of his films I have disliked. But this film has a strong message shown with strong action between race relations. It is very culturally significant for not only the time in which it was made, but the tension all across the country as a few other quiet social revolutions took place in the 1990s. And it was very revolutionary for its time – which is not only why it was released into the Criterion Collection (Spine No. 97), but was also voted into the AFI’s 10th anniversary list.

The only thing I dislike about the movie is I the riot scene. The controversy surrounding the scene, of course, stirred publicity and got more people to see this film. But I dislike it – even though it’s central to what I see as the point of the entire film – for another reason.

The scene is this: Buggin’ Out, a black guy in the neighborhood, gets mad because the local pizzeria, which is owned by an Italian (Danny Aiello), has photos of famous Italian-Americans on his wall. He wants to see photos of black people. But instead of having a civil conversation, he gets angry and excited and the argument escalates to the point that the black man organizes a boycott of the pizzeria – which, of course, makes the pizzeria owner and his oldest son (John Turturro) mad and racial epithets are spoken, which in turn leads to more fighting. Later, Buggin’ Out comes back to the pizzeria and starts a confrontation that quickly escalates into the riot scene.

I get that the scene is necessary for the plot’s climax. The problem is – and I have always felt that this is the point – is that it’s so ludicrous to start a riot over something so innocent as whose picture is on the wall of a fucking pizzeria. First of all, who the fuck cares? The business owner is Italian and he can decorate his business however he sees fit. That’s why it’s his business. Second, it’s completely stupid for someone to lose their head over something like this to the point that they incite a riot.

But that’s the point. It is stupid. It is getting carried way. It is taking things too far. That’s why I feel the message in this climactic scene is that you should “do the right thing” in settling this like two adults and having a civil conversation and not let your emotions cloud your judgment and let the events get out of control.

And even though the message is somewhat significant, it’s a crappy movie.