Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
October 9, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com

That's so Romo!

Kim Hollis: Alfonso Cuaron's last three films are Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Children of Men and now Gravity. Name a director who you think has had as many high quality films consecutively, if ever.

Edwin Davies: I'd probably pump for Paul Thomas Anderson, who directed the one-two-three-four punch of Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood all in the space of ten years, which is pretty staggering to me (I like The Master, too, but I haven't rewatched it since last year so don't know if it holds up as well as all the others do). Going back a bit further, and for fear of showing my Britishness, David Lean had a pretty great streak from 1954 to 1965, when he directed Hobson's Choice, Summertime, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, and Michael Powell directed The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, A Canterbury Tale, "I Know Where I'm Going!", A Matter of Life and Death, Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes in one five year burst, and Edgar Wright is doing pretty great with his last four films. Then of course you have Stanley Kubrick, who directed ten or eleven (depending on how you feel about Eyes Wide Shut) masterpieces or near-masterpieces in a row.

Basically, I think that there are a bunch of directors who have managed streaks as good as if not better than Cuaron's, whose streak actually runs a little longer if you throw in the brilliant sex comedy Y Tu Mama Tambien, though that doesn't take away from what a rare run of form he is in these days. Long may it continue.

David Mumpower: The consecutive part is what trips up most potential candidates. As an example, Steven Spielberg always seems to do a disappointing film every third outing. There was A.I. Artificial Intelligence (a movie I personally love but most do not) after Amistad and Saving Private Ryan. Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can were followed by The Terminal. His movies before and after Schindler's List and Jurassic Park were Hook and The Lost World. Even if we go back the 1970s, Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind were followed by 1941. The greatest living director struggles to create three solid films.

That knowledge reinforces how impressive Cuaron's run has been. To my mind, he crafted the second best Harry Potter movie. In addition, I judge every potential number one film of the year using a "Children of Men" test. While there have been innumerable releases in the 2000s that have impressed me, I use that movie as the measuring stick for greatness. That is the story that strikes me as the most memorable and haunting. Gravity is like 98% on the Children of Men scale upon first blush. It will go up or down based upon repeat viewings...and I can assure you that there will be many of those.

I have spent the past two days trying to think of other film trifectas that are as great as this trio. The name that eventually leapt out at me was Steven Soderbergh. He had a glorious five film run of Out of Sight, The Limey, Erin Brockovich, Traffic and Ocean's Eleven. Two of those movies, Out of Sight and Ocean's Eleven, are among my 50 favorites of all time. I love The Limey almost as much and have a world of respect for Erin Brockovich. I consider those three movies at least in the conversation although I think that I like Cuaron's trifecta more.

Matthew Huntley: I know it's a bit of a cliche to say so, but to me Quentin Tarantino fits that description with Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and Kill Bill (Vol. I and II), and I think it'd be fair to go even further by book-ending that list with Reservoir Dogs and Inglourious Basterds. Not everyone would agree, I know, but he came immediately to mind.

Another cliche, but appropriate choice in my opinion, is Christopher Nolan, who just keeps batting a thousand, and has been ever since Memento. His most obvious string of high-quality hits are Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight and Inception. And yes, I would throw The Dark Knight Rises onto the end as well.

Felix Quinonez: I'm a little torn about this question. I get the feeling that it's equating "high quality" with good reviews. Although I think there is some merit to that approach there have been plenty of times when I didn't agree with the consensus from critics. There have also been some movies that have been trashed but then are appreciated later on, even by some of the same critics who initially dismissed it. The reason I point that out is because I get the feeling my first choice might not be something a lot of people will agree with.

Anyways, I think Bryan Singer had a similar string of high quality films with X-Men, X2, and yes...Superman Returns. With X-Men, Bryan Singer helped kick off this comic book movie renaissance that we're still enjoying and hopefully never ends. He took back the superhero movies from the dayglo, high camp, low brains ghetto that killed the Batman franchise and put many people off superhero movies. He treated the source material with respect and proved that these movies could be blockbusters. He gave us an awesome Wolverine and even influenced the source material itself. Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men had the team sporting black leather suits that were influenced by Singer's take. X2 upped the ante without losing any of the brains or heart. I still think that Nightcrawler opening is as awesome as the first time I saw it on opening day.

And I know Superman Returns is a divisive movie but I absolutely love it, even more so after seeing Man of Steel. I know there were a lot of complaints but I think the biggest one was that it didn't have a lot of action. But complaining about a movie just because it doesn't have enough action is like dismissing it because you didn't like the ending. What about everything else? And Superman Returns has a lot more. Superman Returns managed to be new and still reverential to the past films. It made him relatable. He might have all this power but the world still survived without him. While he was gone everyone essentially forgot about him and that’s a big part of the movie - his quest to find his place in the world. And we can all relate to that. Plus it was bold enough to re-imagine Superman as a sort of divine character. He didn't just come to earth; his father sent his only son to save humanity. He is a Christ-like figure who hears everyone crying out for a savior. The movie also had great performances by everyone…except Kate Bosworth. And the score was great, especially in the scene when Superman flies away after he overhears Lois say that she never loved him.

I think that Superman Returns shines because it wasn't just an action movie. It was moving and sad but also really entertaining...OK, I'll stop now.

Another director I would put in is Christopher Nolan. The only movie of his I would even hesitate to include is Insomnia. I would also put Guillermo del Toro. Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy 2. Steven Spielberg. Too many to name and like David, I loved AI. But for the sake of the argument. Consecutively there was Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET, and Temple of Doom.

Max Braden: An easy way to win this question is to always go to Billy Wilder. His 1944-1960 directing string goes: Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, Death Mills, The Emperor Waltz, A Foreign Affair, Sunset Boulevard, Ace in the Hole, Stalag 17, Sabrina, The Seven Year Itch, The Spirit of St. Louis, Love in the Afternoon, Witness for the Prosecution, Some Like It Hot, and The Apartment - the last three earning him his sixth, seventh, and eighth Oscar nominations for directing. Frank Capra was nominated five times in seven years, and John Ford won two out of three consecutive nominations at the Oscars with Stagecoach, The Grapes of Wrath, and How Green Was My Valley (though the movies weren't back to back, and he directed Young Mr. Lincoln, Drums Along the Mohawk, The Long Voyage Home, and Tobacco Road in the same years). William Wyler directed The Letter, The Little Foxes, and Mrs. Miniver in succession, and had a dozen Oscar nominations for directing out of his 35 films total. Those are from a long ago Hollywood era, though. In the '70s you had The Godfather, The Conversation, Godfather II, and Apocalypse Now in succession from Francis Ford Coppola, and Annie Hall, Interiors, and Manhattan from Woody Allen. Picking someone from the last three decades is tough. I think there's a case for David Fincher, whose successive list is Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room, Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Social Network, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. How about John Lasseter for Toy Story, A Bug's Life, and Toy Story 2?

Kim Hollis: There are some amazing people in the conversation here, and I'm with Edwin that Y Tu Mama Tambien should included when we talk about Cuaron's work, but wasn't sure how many people have actually seen it. For me, the discussion begins with Alfred Hitchcock, who had a couple of different great runs. The first was Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, The Trouble With Harry and The Man Who Knew Too Much, followed by a second set that included Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho and The Birds. Stanley Kubrick had Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining andFull Metal Jacket. Depending how you feel about Lolita, you can actually go even further back into his filmography (Lolita, Spartacus, Paths of Glory and The Killing. You could probably make an argument for a couple of different periods of Martin Scorsese as well.

For modern directors, Hayao Miyazaki really ought to be on the list. He has had a run of films that have been simply magical, and while they might not have earned a ton of box office in the U.S., they have consistently earned over $100 million (and frequently much more) from overseas venues for many years now. Five of his films are in IMDb's top 250. He's directed 11 full-length movies total.

Kim Hollis: If you saw Gravity, what are your thoughts on the film?

Edwin Davies: I thought it was pretty much brilliant, with a few caveats. The story is so lean and tight, remarkably so considering that every blockbuster these days seems to be at least an hour too long, which makes it such a thrilling experience but does make the moments of excess, such as some of the back story that gets thrown out to fill the quiet moments, feel a little clumsy in its implementation. Other than that, though, I was gripped from that first insane single-take and was pretty much on edge right up until the credits rolled. I thought Sandra Bullock was amazing and that this is the role she really should have won an Oscar for, the effects were outstanding. It reminded me a lot of Cloverfield, in that it's an incredibly focused story that never cuts away from its characters to show the broader context, and it is similarly constructed to be as much a ride as a film, which is no great knock against it because it is a hell of ride.

Kim Hollis: I described it as beautiful and terrifying, and I think that choice of words is very apt. For anyone who has studied the romantic poets, the movie does a masterful job of toying with the notion of sublimity. For those unfamiliar with the philosophy, sublimity refers to a greatness beyond calculation. Space is obviously the perfect setting for such a metaphysical story, but Cuaron takes it further by impacting us with something as simultaneously amazing and frightening. Even as we marvel at the beauty of seeing Earth from thousands of miles away, the sense of danger is never gone. Gravity is one of the finest films I've seen in some time.

David Mumpower: I'm self-conscious of the fact that 15 years of film criticism has impacted me negatively in that I am hyper-aware of any and all mistakes in movies. There are some I can shrug off as harmless while there are others that agitate me to the point that I struggle to regain the requisite escapism to enjoy the proceedings. Gravity is a rarity for me, and what I mean by rarity is that I was actively engaged in the proceedings for the full 90 minutes. There was never a moment where I absentmindedly started creating comparisons to other movies nor calculated quips for later discussions of the project. I was wholeheartedly riveted, something I cannot recall happening in several years.

There is a moment in Gravity that involves the International Space Station. The foreshadowing of what will transpire includes these tiny little blips at the top of the screen. There are the early warning signal for the ensuing danger. When I first noticed those during an already tense moment, I grabbed my wife's arm, something I cannot recall ever doing during a movie before. Over the next couple of minutes, I gripped tightly as the catastrophic events unfolded. She mentioned later that I was grabbing her in exactly the same spot where she had received a flu shot the day before. While I was completely engrossed, I was ruining that scene for her as my gigantic, strong hands tightly gripped her bruise. I was thinking, "This is breathtaking." She was thinking, "Flu shot! FLU shot! FLU SHOT!!!" She was kind enough to bite her tongue because she could appreciate how hypnotized I was by the onscreen action.

For several days now, I have debated how I would improve Gravity. I have seen comments describing the dialogue as clunky, and a few poor souls have even stated that they find the movie boring. Hypercritical as I have become, there is absolutely nothing I would change about Gravity. I think it's a perfect film, an instant classic and one of the few recent releases I am convinced people will still be discussing a decade from now. Gravity is a masterpiece.