Back to the Future's Recent Activity - Spout

Film:Back to the Future

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:31:23 GMT

Title: Back to the Future
Year: 1985
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Plot: Contemporary high schooler Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) doesn't have the most pleasant of lives. Browbeaten by his principal at school, Marty must also endure the acrimonious relationship between his nerdy father (Crispin Glover) and his lovely mother (Lea Thompson), who in turn suffer the bullying of middle-aged jerk Biff (Thomas F. Wilson), Marty's dad's supervisor. The one balm in Marty's life is his friendship with eccentric scientist Doc (Christopher Lloyd), who at present is working on a time machine. Accidentally zapped back into the 1950s, Marty inadvertently interferes with the budding romance of his now-teenaged parents. Our hero must now reunite his parents-to-be, lest he cease to exist in the 1980s. It won't be easy, especially with the loutish Biff, now also a teenager, complicating matters. Beyond its dazzling special effects, the best element of Back to the Future is the performance of Michael J. Fox, who finds himself in the quagmire of surviving the white-bread 1950s with a hip 1980s mindset. Back to the Future cemented the box-office bankability of both Fox and the film's director, Robert Zemeckis, who went on to helm two equally exhilarating sequels. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 1332
Number of Lists: 162
Number of blog posts: 38
Number of discussion threads: 13
SpoutRating: 4

Spout Post: Good start to the popular franchise

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:18:35 GMT

Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 7/16/2009 6:18:35 PM
Body: "Marty McFly" (Michael J. Fox in his most famous movie role) is an average teen with Rock 'n Rol dreams. He has a beautiful girlfriend (Claudia Wells), trouble in school with the principal (James Tolkan), a mother (Lea Thompson) who just do not understand him, and a wimp of a father (Crispin Glover) who is still terrorized by high school bully "Biff" (Tom Wilson), who is now his supervisor at work. One early morning, he is asked by his good, yet very eccentric friend "Dr. Emmett 'Doc' Brown" (Christopher Lloyd) to tape his latest invention -- a time machine made out of a plutonium-powered De Lorean automobile. There are some good performances in this movie. In fact, I couldn't find fault with any performances. Everybody, especially Lloyd who was the most over-the-top, did a great job in their characters. Even those who change after "Marty" returns from 1955 are pretty believable. Lloyd is probably the most comical due to being over-the-top around the more serious characters he interacts with. There are some pretty good make-up effects for the 1985 pre-time travel Glover, Thompson and Wilson. The make-up jobs are pretty believable, although Thompson does appear to have prosthetics on her face to fatten her up. As for the computer special effects, it's nothing spectacular. Even though the time machine breaking the time barrier looks impressive, the special effects are over 20 years old. In the 1955 scenes, everything appears authentic. From the clothing, props like televisions to automobiles look great. And they did a great job with the 1955 "Hill Valley" and the 1985 one. It really looked as if the buildings aged 30 years. The music is fun as well. From the instrumentals composed by Alan Silvestri to the classic tunes of "The Ballad of Davey Crockett" and "Johnny B. Goode", and the music from Huey Lewis and the News, who have their big release "Sports" immortalized in poster form in "Marty's" bedroom. There are some good laughs in this film. None of which will make you bust a gut. And like other movies over 20-years old, many jokes reference things that are no longer in existence. In one 1955 scene, "Marty" tries to order a Pepsi Free, the first caffeine-free soda. People who were not around in 1985 would not understand jokes like this one. There is a bit of a continuity problem with "Back to the Future 2" at the end of the movie, but you seem to forget about it when you see the first of the two sequels. This is definitely a family movie. There is a few spots with some bad language, but the language is not extreme like the F-Bomb. And none of the jokes are dirty, so parents need not worry about what their kids will see and hear. Heck, this franchise produced an animated television series, so you know that it's not just for adults. There is even some action scenes, although not many. You get a fun chase scene with 1955 "Biff" and his crew, who are surprisingly not seen in 1985, against "Marty" on a make-shift skateboard. Speaking of the skateboard, there is some good editing in this movie. According to Wikipedia, Eric Stoltz was originally cast as "Marty" and scenes with him seem in the distance are still in the final cut that we see now. The scenes that obviously have a stunt double, or a skateboarding double, are also pretty flawlessly edited together. You pretty much believe that the main actors are doing what is being depicted. Overall, this movie is just fun in general. The problems I've mentioned are pretty much minor and can easily be ignored. It's still a classic.

Spout Post: Re:Weekly Theme for March 9: Time Travel

Sat, 23 May 2009 22:54:57 GMT

Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 5/23/2009 6:54:57 PM
Body: [quote user="rjsprague"] If Dr Gor were here he'd have already mentioned.... Back to the Future Back to the Future II Back to the Future III I have enjoyed many of the films already mentioned, but I really need to pick up Timecrimes. One of my favorite books growing up was The Time Machine, which was made into a movie, but I've never seen it. Perhaps I will someday. [/quote] Actually I wouldn't have mentioned the Back to the Future movies although they were pretty good comedies and I was a bit disturbed by the first one in that if I went back in time and met the teenage version of my mother and she looked like Lea Thompson and she had the hots for me, there might be a bit of a dilema. Both versions of The Time Machine were very good with the original, of course, being the better of the two. The "Morlocks" were effectively frightening in both. A few good ones that haven't been mentioned yet... Time Bandits ; Time traveling midget thieves create havoc in this Monty Pythonesque adventure with a great soundtrack by George Harrison. Time After Time ; H. G. Wells uses his home made time machine to pursue Jack The Ripper to modern day (at the time) San Francisco. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ; Kirk and the boys must retrieve a mating pair of humpback whales from the 20th century in order to stop a deadly alien invasion in the future. < GOR >

Spout Post: Re:Weekly Theme for March 9: Time Travel

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:06:56 GMT

Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 3/11/2009 4:06:56 PM
Body: If Dr Gor were here he'd have already mentioned.... Back to the Future Back to the Future II Back to the Future III I have enjoyed many of the films already mentioned, but I really need to pick up Timecrimes. One of my favorite books growing up was The Time Machine, which was made into a movie, but I've never seen it. Perhaps I will someday.

Spout Post: Professing Our Love for Clue: The Movie. Today in Film Bloggery 02/25/09

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:02:03 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:02:03 PM
Body: Who knew that the 1985 board game adaptation Clue had so many fans? These people certainly weren’t around 24 years ago when the movie opened 6th at the box office, behind even the terrible Santa Claus: The Movie in its third week (I’ll admit, though, Santa Claus is one of my dear guilty pleasures). But suddenly, via the internet, loyalists are everywhere, up in arms over news that a new Clue adaptation is moving forward as if the original were as popular a film as the 1985 box office champ Back to the Future (which grossed as much as 14 times more than Clue). Well, I am with the devoted to an extent. I have loved Clue since seeing it in the theater, and am embarrassed to admit it was probably the film that introduced me to the comic talents of Tim Curry, Madeline Kahn and Michael McKean (what can I say except that I was 8 and hadn’t yet seen Rocky Horror, Blazing Saddles or Spinal Tap?). But I’m not joining the protest, because I know we’ll always have the original movie. Plus, I recognize that it was anything but an original idea (never mind that it was based on a board game; hasn’t anyone see Murder By Death?). And besides, the new version, to be directed by Pirates of the Caribbean’s Gore Verbinski, hardly sounds anything like either the game or the first film. “Global thriller and transmedia event”? I don’t know what that is, but it isn’t the Clue I played. After the jump, the internerds weigh in on their love for Clue or (gasp!) their excitement for Verbinski’s effort: Cinematical’s Monika Bartyzel apparently loves Clue enough to compare it to some of the most beloved classics and cult favorites: “Nothing is sacred. Get ready, because I’m sure Gin, The Movie is on its way, as well as remakes of Gone with the Wind and Citizen Kane, plus someone with enough cojones to try and replicate Bruce Campbell’s Ash.” Adam B. Vary at PopWatch relays Entertainment Weekly editor Nicholas Fonseca’s opinion that the news is “blasphemy” and offers his own praise of the first film: You could scarcely ask for a better script — Professor Plum: “What are you afraid of, a fate worse than death?” Mrs. Peacock: “No, just death, isn’t that enough?” — or a more talented cast. But even if you (inexplicably) think this film of dubious quality, or have absolutely no idea what I’m even talking about, I think we can all agree on this: There is absolutely no need for another movie based on the Hasbro board game Clue. Josh Taylor at Cinema Blend has similar praise: “The original, hilarious, 1985 take on the mystery solving board game sported an incredible ensemble cast led by the likes of Tim Curry, and it’s brilliance defies duplication.” Vulture claims that “everyone loves the campy original,” hence the “humorless-sounding” description of this new version. Nicole at Collider looks forward to the new movie: “Verbinski’s ‘Clue’ already has a leg up on its predecessor, however. It has a director who knows how to take a crassly commercial concept (there’s nothing more crassly commercial than a ride at Disneyland) and turn it into something sublime.” Snarkarati’s Kirsten Anderson clearly hasn’t noticed the unhappy masses and therefore agrees with Nicole: “There was a previous film version of Clue made in 1985, but it was apparently dreadful, so Verbinski has nowhere to go but up.” “maestro610″ agrees in his comment on Cinematical: “If he wants to do this I’ve got to imagine that he’s interested in putting together something that could fit next to the original. We are talking about a movie based on a board game… remember all the explanation necessary is that its a new game. Don’t disacknowledge the original just step away from it.” Megorious seems fine with Verbinski directing, but not necessarily because of his surprising success with Pirates: “Hopefully Verbinski’s version of Clue will be more like his Mousehunt and less like most everything else he’s ever made.” Commenting on PopWatch, “jd” offers up another idea for the new film: “The movie they should make- in the 70’s, National Lampoon magazine did a ghetto parody, called ‘CLOO’. The character names were a bit more urban, and the weapons were straight razors and blackjacks. Very funny, in those non-PC times!” And at Screengrab, Scott Von Doviak sees the potential for a better film with the right casting: “I may be imagining things here, but I seem to recall a notorious bomb from the ‘80s adapted from Clue. And yet … Let the Johnny Depp as Colonel Mustard rumors start now.” Meanwhile, people are commenting all over the web with ideas for who to cast in the new version, but my favorite is this old chestnut, suggested by “Furzee” at Aint It Cool News: “Kate Moss as the candlestick…” And now I present my favorite 25 seconds of the film (boy, do I miss Madeline Kahn): Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Clothes to the Future. Clip of the Day

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:01:33 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/28/2009 4:01:33 PM
Body: Today’s clip isn’t exactly film-related, but it does tie into Kevin’s list from earlier about unsuccessful movie prophecies. Plus, its title somewhat references Back to the Future, and anything paying tribute to BTTF immediately sparks my interest (this tie-in may have even influenced my vote for president). The comedy short comes from FunnyorDie.com and stars Paul Scheer of Human Giant (and Bride Wars, just to make this more movie-related) in two roles. One role, really, but its divided into two parts, “Alex” and “Future Alex.” And the whole thing is a play on the idea of fashions of the future. Anyway, the video made me think of the Oscars’ usual ignorance of science-fiction costumes, particularly of designs for films set in the future (meaning Star Wars‘ win in the category was apparently okay). Why wasn’t Jean-Paul Gaultier nominated for The Fifth Element? And what about Milena Canonero for A Clockwork Orange? Of course, even more disappointing than those snubs was the failure to nominate Joanna Johnston for Back to the Future Part II, a film so visionary in its futuristic fashions that fans campaigned to have Nike produce a pair of sneakers similar to those seen in the movie. Maybe we won’t have self-drying clothes in 6 years, but what a great concept and what a great execution of that idea in Marty McFly’s jacket. Much better work than anything seen in Driving Miss Daisy, that’s for sure. If only we could go back in time and change the Academy’s mind. “Clothes to the Future” with Paul Scheer from Paul Scheer Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Re:The Problem with Time Travel

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:31:44 GMT

Post By: mythman
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 1/20/2009 8:31:44 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="rjsprague"]... treatment of time travel ...[/quote] ... 12 Monkeys was one of the most interesting Time Travel movies. I was always amused by the Back to the Future movies how they always tried to break down time travel and the ramifications and explain it to the audience, and then it would go right ahead and break all of the rules it set up. [/quote]I agree that 12 Monkeys was good to time-travel, and that the Back to the Future series was first-and-foremost a comedy. Another one that was good to time-travel was the Terminator series - most-notably Terminator 3 which (like 12 Monkeys) presented a logical truth about Time-Travel. The Butterfly Effect (2004) might've done that too--I don't remember. Bluntly, that truth is that there are some things you can't prevent (just like there are some you can't predict.) It makes me think of Rubik's Algorhythms---sets of four twists that, when repeated, move a selected square to the 'front' without radically changing any of the other squares on the 'front' (I saw in a Squidoo-lens a while ago). Likewise, time travel can't change the 'present future' (the 'face'), it seems it can only make sure that a selected being moves into it.

Spout Post: 2009 Tech Predictions: Five Technologies That Could Go From Movies To Reality

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:02:06 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/13/2009 4:02:06 PM
Body: As we crack open fresh calendars for a new year, we’re treated to a predictable rash of blog posts: 2009 technology predictions. I’ve read a number of these, and prognostications about Microsoft buying Yahoo make me want to light my laptop on fire just to cure the boredom. As an anecdote to lame, ‘what’s the next Twitter?’-style tech prediction lists, I’ve decided to make a list 2009 tech predictions entirely inspired by movies. 2008 was the year in which widely available real-world gadgets were just as good as what James Bond had. Sure, Daniel Craig kicked some ass in Quantum of Solace, but his only real piece of tech was a phone with a camera and GPS! (Hope you got a good texting plan with that, James.) I predict this trend will continue in 2009. We’ll see even more real-world gadgets that used to be the sole domain of Hollywood special effects gurus. Sure, some of these technologies will require minor miracles to become a reality in the coming year, but others are closer than you think. Strength-Enhancing Exoskeleton Armor In Iron Man, Tony Stark creates a crude, internally-powered suit of armor to escape his terrorist captors. Once he’s safely at home in his billion-dollar laboratory, he hones the suit into a golden ass-kicking machine, and becomes Iron Man. This story isn’t that far from the truth. Rather than a single billionaire playboy, teams of research scientists are developing robotic suits that significantly increase the wearer’s strength. And the end goal is goal is the same: beating the hell out of terrorists. Almost five years ago, UC Berkley researchers announced a DARPA-funded project called BLEEX, the Berkley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (pictured at left). If you’re thinking that giant backpack is full of the machinery that runs the thing, you’re wrong. That’s the 70 lbs. pack the wearer can hardly feel, thanks to his robot legs. Assuming secret military technology is always ahead of publicized military technology, and considering that the BLEEX is five years old, I think it’s safe to say that in 2009 President Obama will personally don an Iron Man suit and kill Osama bin Laden. Levitation Levitation in movies is usually some sort of magical or paranormal phenomenon, like Yoda using the force to lift Luke Skywalker’s X-Wing out of the swamp. But there are examples of technological levitation in fiction, especially flying saucers and other craft that can stay aloft without forward momentum. A technological version of the Force is still a long way off, but there are plenty of forms of levitation that are quite common. Magnetism can be easily harnessed to levitate certain objects, and just last week, scientists added another method to the growing list of levitation technologies. Harvard physicist Federico Capasso has effectively reversed the Casimir effect, which causes metal objects to become attracted to one another when they’re very close together. As exciting as this sounds, the reversal only works on extremely small pieces of metal. But it’s still a step in the right direction. Invisibility Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak relies on magic rather than technology, but this hasn’t stopped scientists from trying to replicate its effects. While one would hope that researchers’ interest in invisibility technology goes beyond their fondness for the boy wizard, they invariably mention Potter’s cloak in every news story about advances in invisibility technology. The development of meta-materials that can redirect lightwaves around an object have made steady progress in recent years. In a National Geographic article from November of last year, researcher Ulf Leonhardt claimed that invisibility cloaks are now “feasible.” Of course there are a few catches. The phenomenon alters visible light slightly while it bends it, and it can only work with specific shapes, meaning that a coat of invisible paint on a spy plane or a stylish cape are still out of reach. With the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in July of this year, I’m sure Potter-loving invisibility scientists will pursue their study with renewed fervor. X-Ray Vision The most popular depiction of x-ray vision is of course Superman, but the Man of Steel doesn’t need a gadget to see Louis Lane’s underwear. There are examples of technological x-ray vision in movies, like the all-but-forgotten 1996 Schwarzenegger vehicle, Eraser. The film featured an advanced weapon called a rail-gun, which had a scope that could see through solid objects. X-ray vision, like levitation, has existed in certain forms for long time, but making it as practical as Superman’s vision is another matter. Thermal imaging goggles used by police and military can see through certain objects that block visual light because of their ability to see infrared light. A new technology being employed in security situations is terahertz imagery, which can see through fabrics and plastic. While the mail-order x-ray specs sold out of comic books in the ’60s were a sham, back in 1998 Sony sold thousands of consumer video cameras whose “night shot” feature allowed users to see through clothing, especially swim wear. Time Travel Debating the physical and philosophical effects of time travel is a favorite passtime of sci-fi buffs and people who edit Wikipedia entries. The scientific consensus is that Back to the Future-style DeLorean time travel is not possible, but Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity do allow for certain types of time travel. For example, the phenomenon of time dilation allows for something akin to traveling into the future. If there were twins, and one stayed on Earth while the other went on a long trip on a spaceship at nearly the speed of light, the traveling twin would be younger when he returned. From his perspective, his trip lasted one year, while his twin would insist that he’d been gone for ten years. So this means that the DeLorean would have to travel much faster than 88 miles per hour, and once they traveled to the future, they could never go back. There is another theoretically possible form of time travel, which involves constructing an infinitely long cylinder in space and rotating it on its longitudinal axis. This would bend space time around the cylinder, allowing a spacecraft to essentially fly back in time. But since there are no infinitely long cylinders laying around, time travel in 2009 seems unlikely. Unless a time traveler from the future decides to come back to 2009 and share his knowledge with us. He’d probably kill his own grandfather, too, just to mess with our heads. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Re:The Problem with Time Travel

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:48:18 GMT

Post By: rjsprague
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/19/2008 10:48:18 AM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="rjsprague"]Needless to say I'm fairly disappointed with Heroes' treatment of time travel. I wanted to know if anyone felt there were films in which time travel was used that didn't result in conflicts in the logic of events, etc. [/quote] I'll have to watch it again, but I always thought 12 Monkeys was one of the most interesting Time Travel movies. I was always amused by the Back to the Future movies how they always tried to break down time travel and the ramifications and explain it to the audience, and then it would go right ahead and break all of the rules it set up. [/quote] Yeah 12 Monkeys definitely had a complexity with the whole time travel thing that made me think. I should also rewatch it to get a better idea of the consistency, or lackthereof, with their use of time travel.

Spout Post: Re:The Problem with Time Travel

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:25:37 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/18/2008 5:25:37 PM
Body: [quote user="rjsprague"]Needless to say I'm fairly disappointed with Heroes' treatment of time travel. I wanted to know if anyone felt there were films in which time travel was used that didn't result in conflicts in the logic of events, etc. [/quote] I'll have to watch it again, but I always thought 12 Monkeys was one of the most interesting Time Travel movies. I was always amused by the Back to the Future movies how they always tried to break down time travel and the ramifications and explain it to the audience, and then it would go right ahead and break all of the rules it set up.

Spout Post: 10 Box Office Champs That Are Also the Best Films of Their Year

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Tag:love

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT

love
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

Spout Tag:funny

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT

funny
Number of films tagged: 608

Number of people who tagged: 315

Number of times used: 941

Spout Tag:Classic

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT

Classic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

Spout Tag:comedy

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT

comedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

Spout Tag:family

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT

family
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

Spout Tag:Great

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT

Great
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

Spout Tag:romance

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT

romance
Number of films tagged: 7161

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1003

Spout Tag:hilarious

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:04 GMT

hilarious
Number of films tagged: 222

Number of people who tagged: 165

Number of times used: 331

Spout Tag:awesome

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:23:33 GMT

awesome
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 158

Number of times used: 291

Spout Tag:murder

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT

murder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

Spout Tag:amazing

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT

amazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

Spout Tag:music

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT

music
Number of films tagged: 4341

Number of people who tagged: 144

Number of times used: 481

Spout Tag:fun

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT

fun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

Spout Tag:death

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT

death
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

Spout Tag:brilliant

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT

brilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285