Archive for September, 2016

I think when I masturbate I’m going to think about your mom.

Year Released : 2016swiss_army_man_poster
Director : Dan Kwan
Cast : Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe

There are some things that I never thought I’d write when I started this website two years ago, and most of which are still true because I’ve yet to even think of them, so imagine my surprise that I am able to write the words “Daniel Radcliffe plays a farting, undead corpse”. I realise that even just uttering that sentence might turn off some of those that are reading this review without having heard of this film before.

Much like a few of my more recent reviews, there is a chance that you will have heard of this film due to it’s unusual nature, not to mention Daniel Radcliffe’s admirable attempt to prove he can do more than just play a teenage wizard. Just for clarification, the reason I am reviewing a few more better known films recently is because there aren’t that many tiny films that really interest me enough to watch them at the moment.

Just to give you an idea of what I think of this film (I only decided to review it after watching it, rather than waiting until the end of the year review), this will be getting something that I stated I wouldn’t give out again just a few weeks ago.


Hank (Dano) got stranded on a tiny desert island some time ago and his “messages in a bottle” (or items to that affect) have had no response, so he decides to end his life by hanging himself. During the act, he notices a body that has washed up on shore (Radcliffe). In his desperation Hank tries to revive the long dead body, all before again going back to hang himself in despair, but at this point he notices the body doing strange actions, such as farting on a regular basis, and he soon realises when he sees the body float and seemingly move at will that this could be his way off of the island.

He rides the body like a dolphin to the nearest other landmass, but again feels suicidal when there are no signs of life anywhere near by. Soon after he realises that the corpse isn’t as dead as it would appear, and he is able to have a conversation with the person he calls “Manny”. Manny has no memory of his life, so Hank decides to try and educate him about the basics of life, and it isn’t long before Manny falls in love with the woman on Hank’s phone (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), believing it to be his own girlfriend.

With Manny’s body being the personification of a swiss army knife, Hank decides to use it to his advantage, but how long is it until Manny finds out the truth about the woman, potentially putting the friendship at risk?


So, that sounds unique….

It sounds unique because it is. “Swiss Army Man” is one of the most original films that I have ever seen and other than an ending that (spoiler alert) sort of reminded me a bit to the ending of M. Night Shamaylan’s “The Village”, there wasn’t a single shred of anything that I had already seen before. It is one of the best original screenplays I think I’ve ever had the opportunity to unfold in front of my eyes.

The reason for this is not only because you’re watching a man using corpse’s penis as a compass (another sentence that I never thought I’d write), but you’re watching a man effectively having a father/son relationship with a dead body, teaching it about the world and life’s lessons. In that sense the film is actually somewhat beautiful, and it’s disappointing that most will be put off by the aspect of it being about a farting corpse, whereas in reality that is only a minor aspect to the film.

Comedically “Swiss Army Man” is hilarious, with Daniel Radcliffe’s completely deadpan delivery of tickeningly (if that’s even a word) funny lines proving to be very enjoyable. Deadpan has always been my preferred method of telling jokes, with some of my favourite jokes of all time being ludicrously funny, all whilst being enhanced by it being told in a completely serious manner, so in that sense it definitely works for me. For example, the quote I put at the beginning of the review “I think when I masturbate I’m going to think about your mom,” is delivery in such a way that it had me laughing out loud, which those that know me will be able to tell you I don’t do that often.


The relationship between Dano’s “Hank” and Radcliffe’s “Manny” is actually quite complex and beautiful, especially a scene in which they are recreating a journey on a bus, and you can tell the pain in Hank’s voice as he is desperately trying to help Manny understand, whilst also hiding his own sorrow, and in many ways it is the ever opening window into Hank’s personality and mental state that proves to be rather interesting towards the end of the film, as you realise that he is actually a very lonely person and being rescued might not actually be the best thing for him.

In many ways that shows that this film isn’t just the farcical comedy that you would probably expect, and in many ways is actually quite a beautiful way of story telling. Much like another film I review recently, “Swiss Army Man” gave me a lot to think about in regards to it’s moral points, and it made me feel a lot of different emotions, which is something that I love when watching a film.

Whilst only having a very minimal soundtrack (usually just the same song), the music definitely adds to the experience of the movie and helps enhance scenes which seem life affirming, and that’s what this film is, it’s a lesson in how to help others, and how to appreciate the little things in life, such as the aforementioned mock-bus trip, in which they spend what must be at least ten minutes pretending to ride the bus.

It’s a film that I suspect most will avoid due to it’s initial appearances, but I beg you not to ignore this and watch it whenever you can.



Brilliant and humble, “Swiss Army Man” is a pure delight and despite initially saying that you would probably never see this stamp perfect-459230_640again after Captain Fantastic, I am again rolling out the “PERFECT” stamp. It may not be the best film of all time, but for what is it trying to be, plus many different elements that are put together to make this, I couldn’t find a single reason not to give it the perfect stamp.

Yes, it’s a slightly silly concept, but it’s a worthwhile concept and one that, other than an ever so slightly familiar ending, was largely perfect. Dano and Radcliffe are perfect together, and I can’t praise this movie highly enough.

This is never going to be a popular movie for the simple reason that I think the farting corpse aspect will put a lot of people off, but I would urge you all to watch it if you can.

It’s worse than Mutiny, Squire. It’s murder. And if they’re successful you won’t see anything at all because you will be quite dead!

Year Released : 1990rsz_treasure-island-tv-movie-poster-1990-1020554821_657
Director : Fraser Clarke Heston
Cast : Christian Bale, Charlton Heston, Julian Glover, Richard Johnson, Pete Postlethwaite, Oliver Reed, Nicholas Amer and Christopher Lee

I think it’s safe to say that this is a relatively well known film compared to most that I usually review, and also one of the oldest. Infact, I think that other than those that I reviewed for last year’s “Halloween Countdown” special, this is the second oldest film that I’ve reviewed for this site.

I first saw this movie when I was around eight of nine years old and I’ve seen several attempts at telling the same story since, and none have come close to the excellence of this adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel.

With my motivation to watch and review films being relatively low at the moment, I thought to myself that it is worth reviewing a film that I had already seen, and going back to my parent’s house for my mum’s birthday and seeing this on the cupboard inspired me to the point where I thought “why not?”


One day Jim (Bale) and his mother (Isla Blair) are visited at their inn by the scruffy and heavily drunk Billy Bones (Reed). He pays them at first, but he stays long after his money runs out and the family are too scared to kick him out, especially as he seems to be fearing something that is coming for him, making him even more volatile. One day that thing arrives in the form of a blind man named Pew (Lee). He hands Billy the black spot, a death sentence. Billy eventually dies from his alcoholism, with Jim and his mother looting his belongings for what he owes them. Amongst his possessions is a map.

Barely escaping Pew, Jim eventually confides in Squire Trelawney (Johnson), and he agrees to fund an expedition to find the treasure indicated on the map. Once the ship sets sail, Jim befriends the peg-legged cook, a man by the name of John Silver (Heston), otherwise known as “Long John”. Although all seems fine at first, it turns out that the treasure map belonged to Silver’s former captain, and he plans on stealing the treasure for himself. Little does he realise that the conversation with his former crew-mates is within earshot of Jim.

Jim reveals all to the officers of the ship, and once the ship makes shore, it becomes a fight for survival, both against each other and in Silver’s case, against his supposed allies.


Why get excited about a story that everyone knows?

Yes, this is one of those stories that you would do very well to find someone that doesn’t know it. The story, and the characters, are classics in fiction and arguably the greatest piece of literature about pirates ever written. It would be easy to write this off as one of the typical books-to-film adaptations and leave it at that, but it you do that then you are missing out on an excellent adventure.

Let’s start right off and say that this feels very different to every other pirate film that I have seen. A lot of films about pirates feel clean, and somewhat polished, but there is nothing like that about “Treasure Island”, it is remarkably brutal, violent and grimy, it still amazes me to this day that it only has a PG rating because you see a lot of the aforementioned types of films that are nowhere near as brutal and get higher ratings. I suspect that if “Treasure Island” was released at the cinema today then it would have a 15 rating, at minimum.

Nothing is held back, there’s bloody fights, clips of people being shot, characters stabbing each other with swords. It’s gloriously grim and violent, and it works so well because it’s not doing it just for the sake of those things, it’s doing it to add to an already excellently told version of the story.

The characters are all portrayed superbly by their respective actors, but Charlton Heston comfortably stands out in a commanding presence on screen. I will make a bold statement here and say that no matter how many portrayals there will ever be of the character in the future (and there is at least one more Treasure Island film currently in production), no-one will come close to re-creating Heston’s performance. He absolutely nails it. Whilst the rest of the cast is excellent, Heston steals the show.


What I especially love about “Treasure Island” is that there are a lot of minor characters that actually get a decent amount of screen time, such as Israel Hands (who can’t seem to make up his mind about whether he is supposed to be on the ship or the island), Hunter and arguably my favourite minor character, George Merry, who is played delightfully by the ever reliable Pete Postlethwaite.

For those that don’t know the story that well, George Merry is a very ambitious character and has his sights on the leadership of the pirates, even towards the end comically convincing one of the others to cut out a section of the Bible as a make-shift black spot. Realistically the character doesn’t stand a chance in hell of overthrowing Silver, and even if he did, he’s not strong enough to lead them, which makes the situation even more intriguing.

The film pays attention to the minor details that a lot of other pirate films ignore, for example, in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” quadrilogy, how often does a character fall ill? I will admit to not having watched any of them for a while, but I’m pretty certain that they’re always feeling pretty fine, whereas that wouldn’t be realistic in an environment where people aren’t eating well or taking care of themselves. “Treasure Island” addresses that and makes an interesting dynamic with a temporary truce between the two camps in order for the doctor to treat the pirates that have fallen ill.

If you somehow don’t know the story then I can’t recommend this highly enough, and I’m not just talking about the film, but the story in general.




One of the most realistic pirate films ever, “Treasure Island” may be a story in which you know everything that happens going into it, but I would still implore you to watch this version as it is one of the best book-to-film adaptations in the history of film.approved

With an excellent cast, essentially a guide of the best that Britain had to offer twenty-six years ago, “Treasure Island” deserves to be better known, or at least watched. It was genuinely surprised that the film had as few votes on IMDB as it did (just over 3,000 at the time of writing).

I almost don’t want to post the trailer because it is one of the worst trailers for a great film that I have ever seen and doesn’t do it justice.


If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world

Year Released : 2016cf_poster
Director : Matt Ross
Cast : Viggo Mortensen, George MacKay, Sam Isler, Annalist Basso, Nicholas Hamilton, Shree Crooks, Charlie Shotwell, Kathryn Hahn, Steve Zahn and Frank Langella

Yes, it’s relatively mainstream, and yes, it’s a film that goes against what I usually write about (obscure films for those that haven’t read this site before), but I just had to write a review on this exceptional film. I don’t usually write about films released at the cinema on this site, but the moment that I realised that I had to was when I was on the walk back and I had to take a deep breath and just let go following a film that could end up not only at the top of my top ten for 2016, but also enter my top ten films from my entire life (and I turn 32 on Monday to put that into further context for people).

At first I thought it was going to be one of those really pretentious films, but as the film went on I was sat in my seat at Hyde Park Picture House with a smile on my face and a sense that I was watching a movie that I would rate a perfect ten out of ten.

You did not read that incorrectly. This film gets a perfect score from me, even though I don’t really do scores on this site. It’s joins “The Fly” (1986 version), “The Thing” (1982 version), “Fight Club” and ” Nightcrawler” on that list. It is a remarkable achievement of story telling, character building, emotional involvement and just an overwhelming flood of emotions.


Ben (Mortensen) is raising his six children in the wilderness after he and his wife decided to do away with it in the search of a purer life. He has trained them to survive in nature, including killing animals, climbing mountains and various other things. Ben’s wife has been in hospital for some time when he phones her sister to find out what the latest update is, he learns that she has committed suicide. Ben is then told in no uncertain terms by Jack (Langella), his wife’s father, that he is not welcome at the funeral as he blames Ben for his daughter’s death.

When he gets home Ben breaks the news to his family and they convince him to go to the funeral anyway, especially as she is being buried as a Christian when she infact followed the Buddhist way of life, and expressed specifically in her will that she wished to be cremated. Ben’s oldest son, Bodevan (MacKay) , decides to hide the fact that he has received offers from all of the Ivy League colleges around America.

The family bonds further throughout the trip, with the exception of Rellian (Hamilton), who seems distracted and distant from the rest, but they are determined to say goodbye to their mother, even if it means upsetting the rest of the family, with Ben’s no-nonsense approach to parenting (i/e rather than lying about his wife just dying, he openly reveals to small children that she slit her wrists) proving particularly unsettling to near enough everyone.


So why a perfect ten?

I was sat in that screen for the film’s 100 or so minute run time and in that time I felt every conceivable emotion. The film is wonderfully joyous at times, hilarious at others, depressingly sad in parts and reflective in the inbetween. There were moments when I felt serenity in joy, and then downright anger. When I go to watch a film, I want to be emotionally invested, and I can’t think of another film off of the top of my head where I felt as many emotions as I did during the run time on an emotions:minutes ratio.

The comedy is genuine and doesn’t feel forced in the slightest. For example, when a police officer boards their bus and starts questioning why the kids aren’t in school, they all start feigning being religious and sing songs about Jesus loving him, and his reaction at being surrounded by six people all singing about God and Jesus is hilarious. You’ve got children being given books about sex and the horrified looks of family members when the children do something that you wouldn’t expect from someone at that age.

But for me, whilst being emotionally invested is important, the single most important thing that a film must do is have an interesting and engaging storyline, and “Captain Fantastic” does that triumphantly  and to sum up how much that means coming from me, search through my other 200odd reviews and you will see that I have never used that word to describe a film, even on ones that I raved about.

“Captain Fantastic” is a film that makes you think and no scene sums this up more than when Ben asks one of his children to summarise the book that she is reading, which happens to be “Lolita” and she describes how you hate the central character in that for being a paedophile, but you also feel so connected to him. Just for the record, I have never read Lolita, nor seen any film based on it, so I have no idea if that’s the case, but in that scene it sums up this film in general, and life in many ways.

The film is told mainly from one perspective (more on that in a minute), but it’s only when you start to look at it from another perspective that you start to consider things that you never previous had, and that’s something that is very rare in films these days.


My example of this is Jack. You’re pissed that he is ignoring his daughter’s wishes (cremation over burial), but you see where he is coming from as a major theme in the final act of the film is the questioning of whether Ben has raised the kids in their best interests. You don’t like the guy for ignoring how someone wanted to be treated after they had died, but as the final act goes on you start to see his point a bit, realising that he infact has the best interests of everyone at heart. Even though he’s antagonistic character, you see where he is coming from and that is the sign of a great villain, even though he’s not really villainous character when you look at it from a perspective other than Ben’s.

Viggo Mortensen plays arguably his best role of his career (in my opinion of course). I will not lie and say that I’ve seen each of his films, infact I’ve only seen four, but for me this was his best role yet and that’s because he caught the emotions of the character of Ben so well, and he nailed it. The character is a very serious one and yet some of the lines he is given make you wonder how Mortensen pulled off a straight face in the situation. For example, he tells his young daughter, who can’t be older than ten about rape and sex without flinching a muscle, whereas everyone in the audience was laughing.

The children are all very well acted, and it must be the first time in a long time where I have seen some child actors and not found their performances tedious. I mean you’ve got Jacob Tremblay in “Room” giving an exceptional performance, but the only thing that has come of that is that he is now typecast due to that performance being so convincing. These kids don’t feel like they’re going to be restricted to similar roles in the future.



The very fact that I’m introducing a new stamp to the site should tell you everything that you need to know. This is a stamp you will not see often in the future, if at all. It’s something that I have only given to four other films in my life, and is something that even my favourite film doesn’t have.perfect-459230_640

If “Captain Fanastic” doesn’t sit at the top of my “Top Ten of 2016” list when I write it in late December then there is going to be something astonishingly good coming out within the next three and a half months, and I genuinely don’t see that happening.

It’s brilliantly acted, superbly written, is visually excellent and is so emotionally investing that I can’t even begin to do it justice with this review.

Watch it.


There is an internal debate that I have had for several months and that it “what is the greatest decade for cinema” in terms of quantity of quality films, and after several months of debate, I have come to the conclusion that the best decade for cinema was the 1980s.

I got onto this debate again over the weekend as I went back to my hometown of Lincoln for a few days. It was the first time I’ve had two days in a row off from all jobs since April and as I turn 32 on September 12th, I decided to celebrate by going home, seeing family and friends, and whilst there I got my present from my parents, the ever reliable present that is money. I decided to invest it in some new Blu-Rays as I haven’t brought myself some for a while, infact it’s only one in since April, which is a low number for me.

After browsing HMV’s five Blu-Rays for £30 section, I came away with the following (I bought more than five);

  • Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure
  • Weird Science
  • Gremlins
  • Krull
  • Some Like it Hot
  • Jane Got a Gun
  • The Gift

I only realised a few hours later that four of my choices were from the 1980s, and it got that debate starting again, and I still come to the conclusion that is the best decade for film. Whilst that is obviously down to personal taste and opinion, I have decided to justify my decision by writing an article about it.


So many classics, and original films at that

Arguably no decade has more classics coming out of it than the 1980s. You’ve got genre defining classics in pretty much every single category, which isn’t something that you can say about most decades. Whilst the 1990s had some timeless films, such as “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Fight Club”, there weren’t that many films that you can look at and say that you’d still be watching them regularly 26 years after the decade ended.

To put this in some sort of context, here are some examples of genres and some of the classics (in my opinion) in that genre. Please note that if there is an asterix next to it, I haven’t actually seen the film and am going purely off it’s reputation.

Science Fiction : ET*, The Terminator, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Blade Runner*, Predator, The Abyss, Star Trek 2 : The Wrath of Khan and Aliens.

Horror : The Fly, The Thing, The Shining, Gremlins and The Evil Dead.

Comedy : Ghostbusters, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Weird Science, Back to the Future, The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off*, The Blues Brothers*, Big, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Honey I Shrunk the Kids and Police Academy.

Adventure : Raiders of the Lost Ark, Willow, Krull, The Neverending Story and The Goonies.

War : Full Metal Jacket* and Platoon*.

Action : Die Hard and Top Gun.

Drama : Rain Man, Stand by Me, Gandhi and A Passage to India*.


All of those were just of of the top of my head, I’m sure if I delved into it there would be more, but there just some of the classics that came from the 1980s, and in particular, original ideas. Again, without delving into it, there are only three sequels listed above (Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and Wrath of Khan), and whilst there are a few remakes (The Fly and the Thing), the vast majority are original ideas and a lot of those films, for better or for worse, started franchises.

As time has gone on, original ideas have become few and far between in Hollywood, making most films predictable, especially in our current decade, in which it’s very hard to see a film that isn’t based on a book, another film, isn’t a reboot, remake or sequel, and is just an outright original idea.

Whilst the majority of films in earlier decades were obviously original, in my opinion no decade outside of the 1980s has produced as many original hits that people still watch and inspired as much.

Computer generated special effects were rare!

The 1980s was the last decade in which it was uncommon to see computer generated special effects in films. The vast majority of effects in the 1980s were practical, and because of this it often looked far more realistic.

For example, the only bit of CGI that I have been impressed with recently was in “The Jungle Book”, in which the animals looked exceptionally realistic, but that is definitely a rarity these days and to counter that, a few weeks later I watched “Gods of Egypt”, which I wouldn’t be surprised if it was all done on green-screens as everything looked ridiculously fake.

Practical effects work better for me because they just look more realistic. I’ll grant you that this isn’t always the case, such as the scene in “The Terminator” in which the Terminator is removing his faulty eye, but by in large it just looks better. One such direct example that I can use is the 1982 version of “The Thing” in comparison to it’s 2011 prequel.

On the image below you can see an image of the same character (please note for those that haven’t seen it, in the picture on the left the character is dead, or least so they think). On the left hand side is the character in the 1982 film and has been done entirely with practical effects, compared to the same character in the 2011 prequel, which was a 100% CGI character.


I have nothing against the prequel at all. Whilst it’s nowhere near as good as the first film, it is a reasonable attempt, but the look of this character in particular just takes away any semblance of fear and danger. Whilst you never see the practical effects split-face character alive in the 1982 film, I would be far more terrified if that was coming towards me than the one on the right, and it’s all because the split-face on the right hand side looks fake as hell.

Everything just looked better in the 1980s and more lifeless, and seeing a character that I know is completely CGI personally takes me out of the film a lot, whereas practical effects characters just don’t have the same impact on me whatsoever.

Effects help story telling and if used right, they can be excellent. There are so few films these days that make non-human characters look realistic, whereas the 1980s managed it so well as it was a time when sixty or so years of research had been perfected, and it was only towards the end of the decade that computer generated effects started coming into effect, and what’s more, some of the creatures in the practical effects era were cute as hell, such as Falcor from “The Neverending Story”.


Characters and story came first!

Following on from the above, one thing that a lot of modern day films often make a mistake on is trying to make their film look great, but completely forget about the characters and story. For example, when I first watched “Avatar” I was stunned by how visually brilliant the whole thing was, and it is stunning in Blu-Ray format, but once you take your eyes off of the look of the film, there just isn’t a lot of substance there. The characters are weak and the storyline is just a “meh” situation.

During the majority of the films in my earlier list, you get to know the characters exceptionally well because the story telling allows them to be. The focus was on great storytelling and not how it looked. For example, I only recently watched “Die Hard” for the first time and it worked on many levels, one of which was that it had a great antagonist (which is another film modern day films struggle with might I add). Even now, more than two weeks after watching it for just the one time, I can remember a lot about the characters, even the minor ones, and that’s what I want.

The central antagonist in “Die Hard”, Hans Gruber (played menacingly brilliantly by Alan Rickman), is a great antagonist because not only does he look like winning, but you learn a great deal about his character.


The same can’t be said of a lot of modern day films. For example, I recently went to watch “Lights Out”, literally the day after I watched “Die Hard”, and yet I couldn’t tell you the name of a single character, it was that forgettable, and that’s not just a one off either. Horror films these days are so focused on things such as jump scares, they’ve taken their eyes off of what is most important, the characters. If I don’t care enough to remember the characters names, why should I care about the situation that they’re in.

For example, in the list above is my favourite horror film, “The Fly”. For those that haven’t seen it, watch it. Go and watch it now (well, after you’ve finished reading this). “The Fly” for me is everything that makes not only a great horror film, but a great film in general. I have already covered this film in my review for “The Fly”, but to sum it up the reason “The Fly” works so well is that whilst it only has three characters, you get to know them so well that you start caring about them as people, and you see where each is coming from.

Modern day films tend not to care about the characters, and are only concerned with the look. Now don’t get me wrong, I know that this isn’t the case for all films, but if we take arguably the most popular modern franchise, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you’ll notice that whilst they are fun, they all lack something that is so important to turning a good movie great, a captivating and believable antagonist. If you don’t think I’m being fair with that statement, take Loki and Zemo out of the franchise and name me one antagonist that looked like winning (Zemo won because he achieved his goal of splitting Steve and Tony).

Infact, I’m going to make a very, very bold statement here. In my opinion, there hasn’t been a single antagonist that you could classify as “timelessly brilliant” since Heath Ledger’s Joker in 2008’s “The Dark Knight”. In an already brilliant film, the Joker is arguably the best part, whereas I can’t think of a single film since that is not only brilliant (which is a small list in itself), but also contains an antagonist on a level that’s even close to that.

That’s not to say that you even necessarily need an antagonist in the film, afterall, “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” doesn’t really have an antagonist, unless you count Ted’s Dad, but even then that’d be a push. Whilst having a bad guy (or girl) isn’t vital, it definitely helps, and modern day films fail miserably to give great antagonists,


Great music!

I’m not going to spend too long on this point but how many films these days have theme tunes that you know as soon as you hear them? I’ve just looked through my entire Blu-Ray collection, about 25% of which are from this decade, and yet there isn’t one that I would look at and think “yeah, that has a theme tune I’ll remember in 26 years” (and just for clarification, I mean original songs, not popular songs just used as the main theme) and yet there are numerous films from the 1980s that you could play back now and most people would recognise them.

For an example of this, I’m just going to leave this here….

And finally, films that people still talk about!

Now, I’m not going to look at films from this decade for this one as it’d be harsh given that we’ve still got over three years of the tens left, but there is no decade which people refer to more than the eighties when talking about films.

For example, there are some decades with a lot of great films in them, and some of the biggest films of all time are from the early days of cinema, but no decade comes close to having as many pop-culture references like the 1980s.


There are so many quotable films that came from the eighties, and they have sunk deep into society. To end this article, here are a few quotes that are still used to this day, even if slightly twisted, that all came from films in the 1980s and I still hear on a semi regular basis in either real life, or modern films paying tribute to them.

“Here’s Johnny” (The Shining)

“No, I am your father” (The Empire Strikes Back)

“I’m too old for this shit” (Lethal Weapon)

“Phone home” (ET)

“Say hello to my little friend” (Scarface)

“Yippee-ki-yay” (Die Hard)

“I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick some ass, and I’m all out of bubblegum!” (They Live)

“Don’t cross the streams” (Ghostbusters)

“We came, we saw, we kicked it’s ass” (Ghostbusters)

“I’ll be back” (Terminator)

“If you build it, they will come” (Field of Dreams)

And with that, I bid you adieu.