web
counter
 

The Smartest Summer Blockbusters (of the Last 20 Years)

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (23)



site_28_rand_336656779_batman_begins_maxed.jpg

After checking the box-office numbers for this weekend, I took another gander at the all-time box-office grosses (where inflation is not accounted for), and of the 461 movies that have reached the $100 million threshold and that were released during the May to August summer months, I was bummed, but not terribly surprised, to have my suspicions confirmed: Nothing really rivals — in terms of complexity and sophistication — the three Christopher Nolan entries in that category. Indeed, in looking at the Smartest Summer Blockbusters from the last 20 years, I realized that there really wasn’t that much to choose from in putting together a list of the top five. You could argue The Sixth Sense, but otherwise, smart sophisticated movies released in the summer rarely break that $100 million mark.

Here are the Five Smartest Summer Blockbusters.

district-9-2.jpg5. District 9 ($115 million): At its heart, District 9 is about the lines we draw around “us” and “them,” and how truly shaky those lines are. We can accept any sort of horror, any torture, as long as it isn’t one of us. The film feeds on the horror implicit in how easy it is to carry a one and move someone back and forth across that line. A man in charge of an operation can in five minutes become nothing more than a pile of resources “worth billions of dollars” that must be harvested quickly. Anesthesia? That’s for people not things, it might interfere with the procedure. Vivisection first, get the heart out as quickly as possible.District 9 is an intelligent and layered film, but as the old adage goes, ideas are boring, so if you must tell a story about ideas, be sure to wrap it with a bunch of explosions. — Steven Lloyd Wilson

Harrisburg DUI Law.jpg4. The Matrix ($171 million): It’s something close to sublime that The Matrix came out the same year as George Lucas’ Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace. Lucas’ film had been building hype for decades, but the Wachowski brothers’ sci-fi/action flick opened inauspiciously in March 1999 and relied on effusive word-of-mouth praise to carry it home. The film was an effects-heavy techno-thriller that’s fantastic in its own right, a well-made, tightly paced machine, but it also served as the Star Wars for the millennial generation, and it did so for a few simple reasons: It offered dazzling modern effects based on vintage technology; its screenplay was perfectly plotted and followed classic structural and archetypal set-ups; and its name would come to be sullied by lifeless, embarrassing sequels. Such is life. — Daniel Carlson

the-bourne-ideddntity.jpg3. The Bourne Series (Identity: $121 million; Supremacy: $176 million; Ultimatum: $176 million): I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, or reveal too much about the film, so I’ll just lead with this: The Bourne Ultimatum kicks. ass. For the many of us who don’t geek out over comic-book flicks (Spider-Man 3) or big-screen cartoons (The Simpsons Movie), salivate over empty nostalgic monstrosities (Transformers), hope against hope that a sequel will live up to its predecessors (Live Free or Die Hard, Pirates of the Caribbean) or yearn futilely to conjure up the magic of a novel (Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix) in cinematic form, there is only one true blockbuster this season that fits the bill. And unlike the others, which I’d argue all failed to varying degrees, The Bourne Ultimatum doesn’t disappoint. It’s not only what you expect, but what you want: A pint-sized shit-kicking machine that delivers the goods and thinks before he shit-kicks. And, unbelievably, there’s just as much joy in watching that thought process work as there is in the carnage it unleashes. Better still: The Bourne Ultimatum is the antithesis to big, bloated action spectacles. This is not a swollen and distended trailer bursting at the navel with a snazzy marketing title, like Bourne on the Fourth of July or Bourne Free ; it’s an honest to God action flick with enough adrenaline coursing through it to burst the capillaries in your eyeballs. — Dustin Rowles

dark_knight_oscars.jpg2. The Dark Knight Series (Begins: $205 million; The Dark Knight: $533 million): If Frank Miller reinvigorated the seriousness of the comic book character with 1986’s The Dark Knight Returns, then Christopher Nolan gave him new life on screen by erasing the memory of Joel Schumacher’s abysmal films and rebooting the entire storyline from scratch three years ago with the bleak, daring, and completely engaging Batman Begins. Tim Burton’s Batman and follow-up Batman Returns were themselves overrated, overheated, and almost suffocatingly stylized, but their biggest sin was that they played up the absurdity of the character without making him believable. Burton once said, “Anyone who knows me knows I would never read a comic book,” and that air of mild condescension came across on screen. But Nolan clearly respects not only the possibilities in the source material but also the very real pain that would drive a man like Bruce Wayne to the edge. Yes, it’s patently absurd that a young man attempting to deal with the death of his parents would channel that rage into karate classes and building a rubber suit shaped like a bat, but Nolan grounds that action in a world that’s palpably real. As a director, Nolan takes the story seriously, and that makes all the difference, transforming his films from good to great. They’re the best superhero movies ever made because they embrace the character on a gut level and not as some pop artifact. The Dark Knight is a harrowing, frightening, uncompromising, flat-out great superhero movie, wonderful in sad ways, hitting the perfect mix of characterization and humor, bouncing between phenomenal action set pieces and the brutally human moments that place the film in a recognizable world even as it soars into comic book fantasy. Put simply, Nolan just gets it. He’s a believer, and he’ll make one out of you, too. — Daniel Carlson

1.Thumbnail image for orr_jul13_inception_post.jpg Inception (Est: $150 million) : It’s this nebulous area between self-deception and idealization that writer-director Christopher Nolan so dazzlingly explores in Inception, a film that’s classifiable as thriller, action, science-fiction, and romance, but is all of these in tilted and inventive ways and so much more than the sum of those uncertain parts. The nature of choice and identity has been central to Nolan’s filmography all along, from the tricky doubling of Following to the shifting realities of Memento, from the cops who construct their own stories in Insomnia to the dueling illusionists of The Prestige. Is it any wonder he was able to do so many amazing things with the Batman franchise, turning a cartoon about a pissed-off WASP in foam rubber into something grand and terrible and obsessed with the effects of our causes? His latest film returns to the daring and challenging heights of his early work, as he he wrestles once more with the demons that haunt us and the lengths to which we go to forget them. — Daniel Carlson









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Limey Review | Easy Rider, Raging Limey | And Now We Know Why Bill Murray Took on "Garfield: The Movie"









Comments

Christopher Nolan is a genius. I'm only a girl today because The Prestige rocked my balls off.

Posted by: twig at July 19, 2010 2:41 PM

It'd would make for better arguments if we knew your criteria for "smart and sophistimacated"

Oh and,

The Bourne series?

Seriously"

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 19, 2010 2:50 PM

Slim it's like pronography. We know it when we see it.

Posted by: Scully at July 19, 2010 2:58 PM

Best Porn Plot...

A bunch of people fumbling around on screen. Eventually they all fuck each other and/or some ancillary characters.

Posted by: PissBoy at July 19, 2010 2:59 PM

Now there's an idea worth exploring; a smart sophisticated porno.

I'm thinking, The Usual Suspects... with lots of anal.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 19, 2010 3:08 PM

The Matrix was released on March 31, since when does that qualify for summer? Instead, try Unforgiven (1992).

Posted by: Irving Washington at July 19, 2010 3:12 PM

Just to point out, the Bourne movies were based on novels, just like the Harry Potter movies. It's true that probably fewer of the people that watched the Bourne movies have read the books than the people that watched the Harry Potter movies. I actually watched the first Bourne movie for the same reason I watched the first Harry Potter movie, I liked the book.

Posted by: cfar1 at July 19, 2010 3:13 PM

What about the 1st Iron Man - certainly on par with The Bourne Series, even if it doesn't achieve the level of a District 9 or Inception.

Posted by: ninetwenteetoo at July 19, 2010 3:26 PM

Wanna be in movies?

Among other things.

Posted by: twig at July 19, 2010 3:28 PM

When did The Matrix become smart?

Is smart now code for "We steal over-used ideas from bad literature and dress them in leather so they look cool"?

Good popcorn movie, but when they sat down to write it, they took every bad sci-fi story from the 60s through to the 80s and smashed them together inside a meat-grinder. The "philosophy" was paper thin at best. The story was a mass of garden-variety sci-fi tropes chewed up and shat out by a studio writing committee with a messiah complex.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at July 19, 2010 3:38 PM

Does anybody want to discuss JGL's SNL gig? Cause I love the guy and frankly I thought they made him look like a douche. It was really painful to watch.

I thought he was going to have a hernia singing "Make Em Laugh." I admire his wall-flipping abilities, but I did not laugh. Well, I did laugh when Dave Matthews said the sound of his own voice made him want to throw up in his hands. But I never laughed at JGL.

Posted by: AM at July 19, 2010 3:45 PM

All this talk of smart pornos is reminding me of something...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKGK2fplV_w

Posted by: Courtney at July 19, 2010 3:47 PM

Is a movie smart only because it appeals to certain group of intellectuals who believe they are smart, or because it makes money?

I thought Ghostbusters was pretty damn smart. It made a shitload of cash, it still has life enough for the dreaded 'reboot 26 years later, and people still enjoy it.

So once again, smart by some self-important standard or smart because it did what a movie is supposed to do, entertain.

Posted by: richmac at July 19, 2010 4:13 PM

cfar1, I liked the books, too, but the movies are nothing like them. Yet, they were still entertaining and fun to watch.

There should be a SRL about movies that were nothing like the book, but still succeeded as stand-alone films.

Also: I could watch JGL in a suit all day. Mmm.

Posted by: Jelinas at July 19, 2010 4:15 PM

SNL's STILL on?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 19, 2010 4:34 PM

I think smart and sophisticated was a poor phrase, but I understand where DR was going with this. The Bournes weren't particularly smart or sophisticated, they were just really good and didn't treat the audience like morons. They weren't Brosnan's Bonds, for example.

Posted by: Brenton at July 19, 2010 7:08 PM

I would like to vote for James Bomb as one of the most sophisticated porns.

Posted by: Nicolae at July 19, 2010 8:07 PM

If the Matrix is smart then I'm Thomas Alva Einstein.

Posted by: logan at July 19, 2010 11:30 PM

Have to respectfully disagree with including the Dark Knight series as "smart". Engaging, sure. Competently made, agreed. Smart? Hmm, maybe not so much. Perhaps it was because Schumacher's/corporate WB's interpretation was so outlandish cheesy-camp (to sell toys, merchandising) but at least it was consistent.

Batman Begins seemed "off". As the title suggests, this is the beginning of Batman and yet by almost the halfway mark he is already swinging from cargo crates/cranes, hanging upside, and developed a very sore throat. Title-to-story issues aside, when dealing with a victim of a powerful hallucinogen, what does the Dark Detective decides to do, rampage through the city he swore to protect in what is basically a tank destroying multiple properties and frightening the victim in the process. Not to mention blowing a hole in the wall of the insane asylum and freeing a whole lot of psychopaths and criminals. It would have probably taken less time and be less conspicuous if he would have just called Alfred to bring the medicine to him after he flees from the rooftop with Rachel. All this after the movie has lost interest in developing Batman's formidable skills, arguably the most interesting part of the movie e.g. his training in the league shadows.

The Dark Knight, sigh. As great as it is that Nolan built what is basically a compelling crime drama from a comic series, his "realistic" style doesn't necessarily mesh with, for lack of a better word(s) the "comic-booky" flourish needed for a comic-book movie. By grounding so much of it in reality, Batman as a character becomes almost silly and extraneous in his own movie, especially since the story seems much more interested in the Harvey Dent vs. Joker match-up. If viewed from Nolan's direction, Harvey Dent (later Two-Face) and the Joker are much more plausible/realistic characters i.e. a good man fighting the good fight against crime but driven mad by a psychotic anarchist. Batman just kinda exists in the background of the real story between these two until the movie needs/calls-for action scenes which just further emphasize the silliness of Batman in Nolan's take i.e. the Joker surmises that Batman will not take a life which is true yet Batman is willing to flip a big-rig with the Joker in it (because he can calculate that by the way the truck is flipping the occupants inside with survive? I call BS). It was already established that the Batman's cape doubles as a hang-glider and he has a grappling gun, yet because the movie calls for it, the batpod makes its entrance, again destroying more property and possibly harming people as the chase ensues. Batman could have easily used the grappling gun to traverse the rooftops with his glider and probably gotten to the Joker faster and not have to destroy and/or harm people in the process. Gordon (because the tone of the movie calls for it) should have realistically locked up Batman and the Joker for the amount of destruction they collectively inflicted upon Gotham.

These are some of the glaring problems I had with Nolan's realistic take. I admire the man and congratulate him on his "successful" take of Batman (critically/commercially) but I think his style is jarring for a comic such as Batman. I think the Punisher, Daredevil, or even Iron Man (though I have suspicions it wouldn't have been as fun as Favreau's take) would have been a better fit.

I think Batman needs a happy medium between Burton's willingness to embrace the silliness of the character and Nolan's understanding of Batman/Bruce Wayne pathos. Though to be fair to Burton, I think he sort of "got it" if you watch the beginning of Batman Returns where Bruce Wayne is sitting in the dark, brooding and only comes to life when the Bat-Signal beams into his study.

This is just one man's respectful disagreeing opinion.

Posted by: Ant at July 20, 2010 7:21 PM

" which just further emphasize the silliness of Batman in Nolan's take i.e. the Joker surmises that Batman will not take a life which is true yet Batman is willing to flip a big-rig with the Joker in it (because he can calculate that by the way the truck is flipping the occupants inside with survive? I call BS)."

This quote from the comment doesnt quite "Get It" for me. Batman didnt 'calculate' that everyone inside would survive. Thats not the point...the point is B wont deliberately kill innocents, or put a gun to someones neck, or let them die in a trap Jokers set. There is an old school, almost Old Testament difference, in that in one interpretation it says "Thou shall not Kill" and the original says "Thou shall not Murder".

And maybe he calculated that no "Citizens of Gotham City" would be killed...and in that case, let the chips fall where they may.

Batman tries to walk that very thin, only perceptible to him, line. And i think he does it well. Collateral damage is bad, but not when the collateral deaths are guys you were going to hunt anyway.

Posted by: Eric at July 21, 2010 3:07 AM

" which just further emphasize the silliness of Batman in Nolan's take i.e. the Joker surmises that Batman will not take a life which is true yet Batman is willing to flip a big-rig with the Joker in it (because he can calculate that by the way the truck is flipping the occupants inside with survive? I call BS)."

This quote from the comment doesnt quite "Get It" for me. Batman didnt 'calculate' that everyone inside would survive. Thats not the point...the point is B wont deliberately kill innocents, or put a gun to someones neck, or let them die in a trap Jokers set. There is an old school, almost Old Testament difference, in that in one interpretation it says "Thou shall not Kill" and the original says "Thou shall not Murder".

And maybe he calculated that no "Citizens of Gotham City" would be killed...and in that case, let the chips fall where they may.

Batman tries to walk that very thin, only perceptible to him, line. And i think he does it well. Collateral damage is bad, but not when the collateral deaths are guys you were going to hunt anyway.

Posted by: Eric at July 21, 2010 3:09 AM

Eric,

I understand what you mean, but I have to respectfully disagree. Batman doesn't (shouldn't) kill, collateral or intentional. If those are the results for his effort, then Batman would/should have quit.

The quote you pulled above... "which just further emphasize the silliness of Batman in Nolan's take i.e. the Joker surmises that Batman will not take a life which is true yet Batman is willing to flip a big-rig with the Joker in it (because he can calculate that by the way the truck is flipping the occupants inside with survive? I call BS).", when I wrote it, I did not mean for it to have a direct correlation to each other.
I just meant that Nolan/writer(s) is picking up on the element that Batman does not kill, he will/can do harm but there is a line he will not cross and that is killing/murder as a result of his actions. So, Batman would not flip a big rig with people inside unless he would make an effort to pull them out. In the Dark Knight however, he sits on his batpod and watches his handiwork as the truck flips. Cinematically it looks cool(?) but as relating to Batman's character, is hypocritical and downright rings untrue. Hell, Schumacher's Batman Forever touch on this when Chris O'Donnell wanted to be Val Kilmer's sidekick, and Batman said no, because it was too dangerous and Batman could not/would not stand to lose someone close to him. Yes, he eventually relents and accepts Robin, but Batman makes sure to pushes Robin past his breaking point to ensure that he is not lost and as result, Robin (disgruntled) leaves and becomes Nightwing later on.

For all the interpretations of Batman out there, I say that all should hold to two truths: 1) Batman will never use a gun (his parents were taken from him by a man with a gun) and 2) Batman does not kill; every thug, crook, psychopath is still some child's parent and Batman would never want some child to witness/endure the same traumatic event he went through. I think that is key to his character. I suspect that Batman does not agree with the bureaucracy of the justice system thus his need to don the cape and cowl but Batman inherently still believes that it works.

Batman is (and should be, especially in a movie so celebrated of "getting" Batman's pathos/character) much more deliberate in all his actions.

Posted by: Ant at July 21, 2010 5:00 AM

you know, i honestly liked the matrix reloaded and revolutions. yes they had some cheesy parts and i could have done without the computer animated neo, but i still thought they were pretty good movies. (and good follow ups to the first one)

Posted by: d at September 8, 2010 4:01 PM