Seven More Classics I Recently Saw for the First Time

The Sting (1973):

Why it’s a classic: For reuniting the two biggest stars of Hollywood four years after they made a big splash together with “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” and packaging it with excellent production values at a time when period pictures were in (think The Godfather, Chinatown, Murder on the Orient Express), “The Sting” was awarded Best Picture in the 1973 Oscar race. On top of that, the “Sting” is a positively loaded crowd-pleaser.

Did it live up to the hype? From the expansive supporting cast to the sepia-toned color palate to the complimentary age-appropriate score, there is a lot to like about this show. Even more than “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”, this is a testament to Redford and Newman’s star power and even a meta-commentary of sorts on the nature of the star. Hard to also discount Robert Shaw’s turn as a terrifying villain. The man is so still and focused, I could have easily been convinced I didn’t see him blink.

Poseidon Adventure (1972):

Why it’s a classic: In the 70’s, disaster films were among the highest grossing films of their day, had some of the best casts, and were nominated for Oscars all over the place (“Airport” and “Towering Inferno” even got BP nominations). The Poseidon Adventure, set aboard a cruise ship, pulled together five Oscar winners (Shelley Winters, Red Buttons, Jack Albertson, Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine) along with Roddy MacDowall and Arthur O’Connell.  As evidence of its cult status, the film has even been looked upon as a religious allegory (it features two preachers with contrasting views) and spawned re-showings and convention-type events.

Does it live up to the hype?: Like the best of Roland Emmerich’s films (the filmmaker of “Independence Day” and “Day After Tomorrow” and spiritual successor of this trend), this is a tightly-scripted action film on a scale of grandeur that’s beautifully pulled off. It also can’t be underestimated that the first time watching this film, you don’t know how it will end and it’s pretty clear that all casualties are on the table. It also helps that none of the big-name actors at the time were stars that overshadowed the rest of the cast so the film has a great even-keeled ensemble feel with an even spread among multiple compelling stories.

Carrie (1976):

Why it’s a classic: The opening tracking shot during the credits is up there with “Touch of Evil” as the greatest in history and it is the first Stephen King adaptation to be put to film (his debut novel no less). It is one of the most highly acclaimed horror films in history in terms of mainstream appeal.

Does it live up to the hype?: The film is primarily known for being such a well-told tale of adolescent carnage and while it’s tonally difficult to grapple with, I could accept that there was some heavy symbolism that would take some effort to work out with (generally a good thing).

What stuck out to me for the strong characters and relationships. Sissy Spacek (who would go on to be nominated for six Oscars) is the epitome of that feeling all puberty-ridden teenagers have of feeling alien in their own body. Carrie’s singularity is also better defined by the happy-go-lucky coterie of girls who so casually exhibit cruelty towards her and Nancy Allen (who plays the ring leader) deserves credit for that. Piper Laurie was nominated for an Oscar for her role as the fundamentalist mother but Betty Buckley can’t be underlooked for her performance as a gym teacher so sweet and understanding that I kept wanting to press the reset button on my adolescence so I could have her in it.

King Kong (2005):

Why it’s a classic: Peter Jackson followed up his blockbuster-defining trilogy Lord of the Rings and his cache of Oscars with a remake of the 1933 classic that was one of the most ambitious films of its day. Jackson cited the original King Kong as his first cinematic love and media reports suggested he drove himself to exhaustion trying to recreate it for the CGI era. Although the film didn’t deliver Titanic-levels of return at the box office and lost the December battle to “Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”, its $218 million domestic gross ($550 million international) was solid enough to call it a success. More importantly, it garnered excellent reviews and had enough buzz to merit an outside shot at a Best Picture nod (exceedingly hard for Blockbuster films in the 5-film era).

Did it live up to the hype? Although a little on the long side, it’s definitely worth it. The film’s first act doubles as a scene piece of Depression-era struggles (like “42^nd Street” or Tim Robbins’ “Cradle Will Rock”) that could be its own movie, the second act is a cheesey romance and comedy of manners between Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts, the third act is essentially a giant monster film like Godzilla, and the fourth act is an allegory for the follies of man in thinking they have a right to cage the animals.  The quality of the film on every level ties the disparate parts together and it’s hard to understate how amazing Naomi Watts is in playing off a CGI age.

Princess and the Frog (2009)

Why it’s a classic: This late entry into the canon of animated Disney musicals is the first Disney musical to feature an African-American role in the archetypical princess character. It also made headlines for its retro method of 2D animation at a time when animated films were trying to push the uncanny valley of realism (the worst offender would be the utterly pointless “Lion King” remake a decade later). The film was nominated for two Best Song Oscars from Randy Newman’s score and competed in an incredibly deep Animated Film category (“Fantastic Mr. Fox”, “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs”, “Coraline”, and “Up” came out the same year).

Did it live up to the hype? Definitely! I give this film three zip-a-dee-do-dahs and a chim-chim-a-ree. The film sets itself apart through a regional specificity that comes from doing great research and sprinkling it organically into the story. The map of New Orleans, the details about Mardi Gras, the culinary and architectural delights of the city, and the mystique of voodoo (used in both the characterizations of the villain and the wise elderly savior character) are all things that have some footing. The film also dares to imbue characters with regionally speficic and often unintelligible accents, fear of backlash be damned, and it’s beautiful. The downtrodden protagonist Tianna is juxtaposed with her wealthy friend Lottie and his father Big Daddy Bouffet and the privilege of the Bouffet clan isn’t ignored while the bond between the two parties and the lesson of voluntary benevolence is celebrated.

Nine to Five (1980)

Why it’s a classic: The 2^nd highest grossing film of 1980 is probably best known for its iconic title song that doubles as an anthem for punch card working life resiliency. The unlikely pairing of Hollywood royalty Jane Fonda, comedienne Lily Tomlin, and singer Dolly Parton produced a lightning-in-the-bottle chemistry that led to a lifelong friendship.  The story of rebelling against a handsy boss (Dabny Coleman) through a haphazard hostage scenario likely resonated as a feminist power ballad in 1980 and probably resonates more with the #metoo movement today.

Did it live up to the hype? The days when a simple comedy can jump that high on the box office charts are long gone so it’s hard to judge it along the scale of today’s most popular comedies which rarely crack the top 15 in yearly box office. “The Hangover” might be the best example of a critically well-received blockbuster that made a dent in the box office charts today (“Crazy Rich Asians” and “Bridesmaids” were a little more successful critically but not financially).  The chemistry between the three is a-sparking and Dolly Parton, who was likely cast as herself, brings a certain amount of welcome pluck. It’s a bit broad as a comedy but entirely pleasing. The special effects to depicting the three women’s revenge fantasies also didn’t do much for me.

Pawn Broker (1965)

Why it’s a classic: It’s not well-known among Sidney Lumet’s repertoire but it’s one of his most personally affecting and stylistically innovative films. The story of a jaded Holocaust survivor who owns a pawn shop in Harlem is the first film to approach the tragedy from the point of the view of its survivors. It is also a massive stylistic departure from the New Wave with a jazz score, black-and-white, and raunchy realism (it’s the first film to show a topless woman in some context).

Does it live up to the hype: This film is more of a hidden gem than a classic, so there’s not as much hype to live up to and that’s a shame. The film is visually rich, meaningful, and doesn’t look or feel like other studio films from the era. It isn’t necessarily a light popcorn film but its darkness isn’t without meaning and there are slivers of a redemptive arc worth holding out for.