“The Usual Suspects”
What’s It About: A ship fire and a mass murder leave behind one witness, fast-talking career criminal Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey), who knows the truth about the discovered corpses and is gradually coerced into sharing the story of his accomplices (including Gabriel Byrne, Benicio Del Toro, Kevin Pollack and Stephen Baldwin) with the dogged detective (Chazz Palminteri) on the case.
Year It Played Sundance: “The Usual Suspects” was part of a crowded 1995 Sundance slate, one that also included “Living In Oblivion,” “New Jersey Drive,” “Nadja” and Grand Prize winner (!) “The Brothers McMullen.”
How Was It Received At The Time? Bryan Singer’s second feature (his first, “Public Access,” was a previous Grand Prize winner at Sundance) played at both Sundance and Cannes before gaining a mainstream release by Regency Pictures. Roger Ebert was a famous detractor, placing the picture on his “Most Hated” list, but critical reception was otherwise strong.
How Big Did It Get? The picture was a surprise summer indie hit, grossing $23 million and launching Singer onto the studio A-List, where he’s spent his career thus far making superhero epics like “X-Men” and “Superman Returns.” The picture netted an Academy Award for screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie as well as one for Best Supporting Actor Kevin Spacey, launching his career into leading-man territory. Well before the internet age, “Who is Keyser Soze?” became something of a pop culture meme.
Is It Worth The Hype? Hell yes. You wonder exactly where Singer’s potential went, given the twisty nature of this perversely entertaining crime caper. Even when you know that a massive twist is coming, you can still appreciate how tightly the film’s narrative is woven, as a crackerjack cast spills hardboiled bons mots in one of the best post-Tarantino crime films of the nineties.
“Napoleon Dynamite”
What’s It About: An eccentric outcast (Jon Heder) pools his resources to get his best friend elected class president.
Year It Played Sundance: 2004, where the Grand Prize went to “Primer” and the festival saw an influx of exciting talent in films like “Maria, Full of Grace,” “Down To The Bone,” “The Woodsman” and “Garden State” (also covered in this list).
How Was It Received At The Time? Reviews were mixed-to-positive: Michael Atkinson at The Village Voice memorably called it “a movie that, despite all indications to the contrary, is one absolutely no one likes.” Roger Ebert also claimed the character of Napoleon was altogether unlikable, while A.O. Scott claimed director Jared Hess had “a lot of talent, and a lot to learn.” David Edelstein was one of the film’s many supporters, calling the film “a charming ode to nerds.” The movie was enthusiastically purchased by Fox Searchlight, Paramount and MTV Films and given a strong limited summer release.
How Big Did It Get? “Napoleon Dynamite” grossed a pretty solid $46 million, but no one was prepared for the mainstream popularity the film achieved. Leading man Jon Heder became an in-demand actor for a short while, memorably trading barbs with Will Ferrell in the hit “Blades Of Glory.” Hess went on to work with Jack Black on “Nacho Libre,” also becoming an in-demand filmmaking name. However, it’s telling about the nature of the film’s then-and-there popularity that some years later, both would be free enough to work on Fox’s short-lived “Napoleon Dynamite” animated series, which felt just a couple of years too late.
Is It Worth The Hype? It’s ironic that people have long since stopped paying attention to Hess, given that his storytelling and visual acumen improved each time out: 2009’s “Gentlemen Broncos” is a minor triumph in deadpan inanity. But “Napoleon Dynamite” is a crude, often intentionally opaque exercise in futility, bereft of any truly inspired comic ideas and over-reliant on Heder and company’s admittedly spot-on performances (Aaron Ruell is a revelation as Napoleon’s brother). It’s a gag-fest, in other words, with enough jokes tied together to feasibly call it a movie. For some audience members, that’s more than enough, but it robs it of true classic status.
“Roger And Me”
What’s It About: Documentarian Michael Moore struggles to get a meeting with General Motors CEO Roger Smith regarding the closing of several auto factories in his hometown of Flint, Michigan.
Year It Played Sundance: In 1990, “Roger And Me” was the standout documentary, while other narrative features included “House Party,” “Longtime Companion,” “Metropolitan” (listed here) and “To Sleep With Anger.”
How Was It Received At The Time? The film received no awards at Sundance, though it eventually popped up at a number of festivals, earning a $3 million distribution deal from Warner Bros. Pauline Kael was a famous detractor, calling it “a piece of gonzo demagoguery.” Roger Ebert existed on the other end of the spectrum, enthusiastically defending the film from attacks by discussing how Moore’s use of a flexible timeline was more about the nature of storytelling on film.
How Big Did It Get? “Roger And Me” is one of the most influential documentaries in history, singlehandedly altering the format and bringing it into the homes of people who otherwise would have never watched a news magazine on the big screen. His use of humor also led to an evolution of the art form, as the medium now bears witness to several different, more lighthearted approaches to even the darkest subject matter. The picture grossed $7.7 million, and has since been preserved by the National Film Registry.
Is It Worth The Hype? By the time Moore was seen in his next film, “The Big One,” he had grown to be the insufferable lightning rod he is today, infusing his do-gooderism with a large dose of ego, his sense of humor waning. But, once upon a time, Moore made a remarkable picture. “Roger And Me” remains an unsettling, but wholly entertaining bit of agit-prop cinema, fueled alternately by witty liberalism and indignant social anger, all leading up to a symbolic punchline which Moore would later revisit, to diminished returns, in other films. Later Moore pictures would be hits, but none carried the intimacy and precise scope of his very first.
“Spanking the Monkey”
What It’s About: David O, Russell’s feature debut follows Ray (Jeremy Davies), a promising pre-med student, returning home to take care of his bedridden mother in his
salesman father’s absence, during which time he and his mother (Alberta Watson) embark on an incestuous affair.
Year It Played Sundance: 1994, same year as “Clerks,” “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” “Backbeat,” “Go Fish” and “Hoop Dreams.”
How Was It Received At The Time: Russell’s first feature picked up the Audience Award at Sundance, and was largely positively reviewed, though some, like Todd McCarthy at Variety, found issue with its tonal inconsistency and immature visual style. The performances, especially from Davies and Watson, were widely lauded and its unflinching but unsensationalist take on taboo subject matter certainly made it stand out from the family-drama crowd.
How Big Did It Get?
The film picked up a distribution deal from Fine Line at the festival and went on to be a modest arthouse hit, and it definitely features the kind of performance from Davies that you would have thought would lead to a higher-profile career. But of course what it really did was launch Russell as a writer/director of note and, even this early on, showed his talent for finding moments of comedy amid dramatic circumstances (though this would probably be his most “serious” film until “The Fighter”). It also showcased his ability in eliciting excellent performances, and just look where he is now: directing four actors to Oscar nominations for the second year running.
Is It Worth The Hype?
Actually, yes, the film holds up very well even now, as a quietly compelling, offbeat coming-of-age story in which the incest, while of course forming the focal point of the plot, feels like an organic extension of a peculiar family situation and the specific characters involved (Watson’s mother is an especially ambivalent and interesting character) rather than a ploy to manufacture controversy. And depending on your point of view, that it’s not as obviously quirky as some of Russell’s subsequent films can either be a positive or a negative, but suffice to say its sincerity is a necessary counterbalance to its potentially splashy content.
“Clerks”
What It’s About:
The feature debut of writer/director/divisively outspoken individual Kevin Smith is a black-and-white look at a day in the life of two down-at-heel store clerks (Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson) and their circle of similarly shiftless friends.
Year It Played Sundance: Vintage year 1994, along with “Spanking the Monkey” and “Hoop Dreams” (also on this list), “Suture” and “Fresh” among others.
How Was It Received At The Time? “Clerks”
shared the Filmmaker Trophy from Sundance with Boaz Yakin’s “Fresh,” and was famously picked up by Miramax at the festival. That, however is a story unto itself, with Harvey Weinstein reportedly having already been invited to a private advance screening and leaving after 15 minutes, and only reluctantly being persuaded into seeing it at Sundance (more on that story over on Spout). However, with Smith’s stellar Q&A performances and the film playing to the Park City crowd like gangbusters, Weinstein loved his second viewing, which just goes to show the power of the festival atmosphere.
How Big Did It Get?
Boasting one of the biggest profit profiles on this list, if you compare its famously credit-card-funded shooting budget of $27,500 to its eventual take of $3.15 million, “Clerks” proved a big hit for Miramax, but only after they hired no lesser a personage than Alan Dershowitz to petition a change in the MPAA’s original rating: the dreaded NC-17. The studio won, the film went out uncut and rated R, and the mixed blessing of Kevin Smith’s career was kicked into the independent film stratosphere. It currently regularly places high on lists of all-time greatest comedies.
Is It Worth The Hype?
Absolutely. It’s unpolished, to the point of amateurism in parts, particularly the acting, but the script is genius-level funny and the shooting inventive and highly creative. Most importantly, and probably largely because of its inescapable lo-fi look and the Cinderella story behind its acquisition, it retains the ability to inspire fledgling filmmakers to this day, and even back in 1994 was a shot across the bow of the establishment that provided one of the first, much-needed periodic reinvigorations of the concept of “independent.”v
“Slacker”
What It’s About: A series of vignettes and conversations between the misfits and oddballs of Austin, Texas.
Year It Played Sundance: 1991, where it was beaten to the Dramatic Jury Prize by Todd Haynes‘ “Poison.” Stephen Frears‘ “The Grifters” opened the festival, and Hal Hartley‘s “Trust,” John Sayles‘ “City Of Hope” and Anthony Minghella’s “Truly Madly Deeply” were among the other notable premieres.
How Was It Received At The Time? The film was mostly heralded as the arrival of an exciting new voice, in the shape of director Richard Linklater. Hal Hinson in The Washington Post called it “a work of scatterbrained originality, funny, unexpected and ceaselessly engaging,” for instance. Some were a little more skeptical, with the New York Times‘ Vincent Canby writing “After a while, a certain monotony sets in,” but, for the most part, the film got the kind of stellar reviews that make a career.
How Big Did It Get? You wouldn’t call it a smash, exactly, but Orion Classics picked up the movie and took it to a very healthy $1.2 million in the summer of 1991—many Sundance flicks these days would die for the same number. More importantly, it went on to a long life at midnight screenings and stoned VHS viewings, proved to be enormously influential and launched the career of its director, who followed it up with teen classic “Dazed & Confused” and has gone on to become a Sundance staple: “Before Midnight” was one of the big talking points last year, and his latest movie, “Boyhood,” premiered in Park City just last night, and by all accounts might be the director’s masterpiece.
Is It Worth The Hype? For the most part, yeah. The film’s loosey-goosey energy has held up better than the sophomore-year philosophizing, but even the latter works better than in the film’s many imitators—the breadth and diversity of subjects and characters is dizzying, the level of invention energizing, and, perhaps most importantly of all, it’s very funny. Linklater’s moved on to bigger and better things since, but this is the one that told us who he was.
“Blue Valentine”
What It’s About: Derek Cianfrance’s heartbreaking film examines, through temporally juxtaposed editing, the relationship between Cindy (Michelle Williams) and Dean (Ryan Gosling) from their first encounter, through the blush of love, marriage and parenthood, right up to the relationship’s dissolution.
Year It Played Sundance: 2010, along with “Winter’s Bone,” “Animal Kingdom,” “A Prophet,” “The Killer Inside Me,” etc.
How Was It Received At The Time? The response was overwhelmingly positive, especially to the partly improvised performances of the two leads and to Cianfrance’s clever editing and lovely photography. The Weinstein Company picked it up and, as with “Clerks,” fought the initial NC-17 rating (because of a cunnilingus scene FFS) down to an R.
How Big Did It Get?
It made $12 million off its $1 million budget, but its real legacy is in the careers it transformed. Whether or not there are second acts in American lives, there was certainly one in Derek Cianfrance’s career as, following his 1998 debut, “Brother Tied” (which also premiered at Sundance), the director disappeared from the big screen for over a decade, largely directing TV documentaries in the interim. But his return to Park City essentially relaunched him, and made him, second time at bat, one of the most exciting “new” filmmakers to emerge that year. He seems also to have been riding a crest of generational attention due to casting of Gosling and Williams, both of whom were poised to blow up at any moment, and giving each a brilliant showcase for their talents—Williams would garner an Oscar nomination and Gosling would star in Cianfrance’s follow-up “The Place Beyond the Pines.”
Is It Worth The Hype? Yup, it’s a terrific, honest portrayal of the reality of a relationship in which neither party is a monster and both are at one point madly in love, but even that proves just not enough to be sustainable. It’s what happens after the “happily ever after” part of the fairytale, after the “The End” card of the romantic comedy, and it’s brilliantly played by Williams and Gosling.
“Donnie Darko”
What It’s About:
Donnie is a bright but troubled teenager plagued with dreams and hallucinations that are in some way related to time travel, and that appear to be warning him of an approaching tragedy he cannot clearly foresee.
Year It Played Sundance: 2001, same year as “Hedwig and the Angry Inch,” “Memento,” “In the Bedroom” and “Dogtown and Z-Boys.”
How Was It Received At The Time? Following largely positive, occasionally rapturous reviews out of Sundance (Roger Ebert being a notable dissenter), the film nonetheless scrambled to find distribution, eventually landing with Newmarket Films largely thanks to producer and star Drew Barrymore’s tireless efforts to get the film a theatrical release. But then it more or less disappeared at the domestic box office, at least partially as a result of its release just weeks after the September 11th attacks.
How Big Did It Get? The film’s international release the following year saw it recoup its budget, but it was really on DVD that it made its money ($10 million, reportedly). Meanwhile its status as a cult film was growing, seeing it play extended Midnight Screening runs and gain in reputation to the point that Kelly got to release a Director’s Cut in 2004, which no longer had the studio-mandated 2-hour restriction. As a cultural artifact, the film also had a major impact, launching Kelly to prodigy status (he was only 26 years old when he wrote and directed “Donnie Darko”), making a breakout leftfield star of Jake Gyllenhaal, and even seeing the world lose its shit for Michael Andrews’ cover of Tears for Fears’ “Mad World” which became the spookily iconic centerpiece of its popular 80s-inflected soundtrack.
Is It Worth The Hype?
The cautionary tale of “wunderkind” Richard Kelly’s subsequent career aside, the film itself remains a fantastic mindfuck, a wonderfully enigmatic eerie-toned puzzle box featuring a role for Gyllenhaal that more or less defined his twitchy, soulful intelligence. Just avoid the director’s cut where possible and stick with the tighter and more confident theatrical version.
“Garden State”
What It’s About:
Depressed and medicated twentysomething Andrew (Zach Braff, directing himself from a self-penned script) returns home to New Jersey for his mother’s funeral, reconnects with old friend Mark (Peter Sarsgaard) and falls for self-confessed pathological liar Sam (Natalie Portman), while trying to make sense of his place in the world.
Year It Played Sundance: 2004, alongside “Primer,” “Maria Full of Grace,” “Super Size Me” and “Goodbye Lenin.”
How Was It Received At The Time? After a very positive response at Sundance and reviews that saw “Scrubs” star Braff repeatedly referred to as a “triple threat,” the film landed a joint distribution deal between heavy hitters Fox Searchlight and Miramax.
How Big Did It Get?
The film was helped by a smart rollout strategy that kept it playing regional festivals and advance Q&A screenings prior to its wider theatrical release, so it picked up several “breakthrough” type awards and built word-of-mouth. It ended up pulling in $35.8 million worldwide, making it hugely profitable even after having been bought for $5 million (twice its production budget), and earned Braff a Grammy for the indie pop, Shins-heavy soundtrack. But beyond the numbers, “Garden State” was an early example of what has come to be seen as kind of the Platonic ideal of the Sundance movie, for better or worse: independent but with recognizable stars; helmed by a first-timer destined to be hailed as a wunderkind; dealing with the neurotic, white, middle class American experience.
Is It Worth The Hype?
It probably deserves neither the overpraise it received at the time, nor the vitriol that Braff haters have retrospectively heaped on it. It’s overly navel-gazey and self-involved, yes, but it does have a good few well-observed and heartfelt moments for all its moony trappings. You can check out our review of Braff’s current Sundance film “I Wish I Was There,” which reportedly revisits similar dramedy territory, here.
“Man on Wire”
What It’s About: A breathtaking documentary featuring interviews and reconstruction footage, directed by James Marsh, about Philippe Petit’s 1974 illicit high-wire walk between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.
Year It Played Sundance: 2008, the year of “Be Kind Rewind,” “Choke,” “In Bruges,” “The Wackness” and “Towelhead” among many others.
How Was It Received At The Time? Against perhaps not the most competitive lineup Sundance has ever seen, “Man on Wire” really ruled the roost, picking up both the Audience Award and the Grand Jury Prize for documentary, the first time a non-U.S. film managed that double. Magnolia picked it up for U.S. release.
How Big Did It Get?
The film brought in nearly $3 million domestically, which is hardly astounding, but it did go on to have a very successful DVD release. More important, though, was the film’s critical domination of that year’s conversation—it was all over most critics’ year-end lists and went on to scoop the Academy Award for Best Documentary and the equivalent at the Independent Spirit Awards, along with the BAFTA for Best British Film. And though we set little store by RT ordinarily, it is remarkable that its Rotten Tomatoes review score is holding at an unheard-of 100% to this day. It also launched the more prolific period of James Marsh’s career, allowing him to work more continually across narrative (“Red Riding,” “Shadow Dancer”) and documentary (“Project Nim”) ever since.
Is It Worth The Hype?
An unreserved yes. Marsh stated he was attracted to the film because he viewed it as a heist movie, and that element of thrillerish excitement is certainly there. However the film is also a terrifically moving look at friendship and the toll that one man’s tunnel-visioned drive and talent can take on his relationships, as well as a portrait of a truly extraordinary, but not always likeable, man.
