The Best Has Yet to Come Trivia Quiz

Answer: The Empire Strikes Back

When George Lucas created "Star Wars" in 1977 he achieved a number of things. He shifted the western genre to new battlefield... space, he pushed the blockbuster to new boundaries, paved the way for better qualities in sound and special effects and created a work of art that won the hearts of fans across the globe.

"Star Wars: A New Hope" introduced us to Luke Skywalker, who didn't know it at the time, one of the last remaining Jedi Knights in universe. The Knights were a collective of peace keepers that utilized the "force", a mystical energy that resided within nature, to enhance their power and aid them in retaining the balance in the world. Under guidance of an aging Jedi, Obi Wan Kenobi, Luke is introduced to the ways of the force and soon finds himself aligned with a rebellion that is taking on the dark forces of the Empire who have the mighty Darth Vader as their prime warrior.

There were always fears that the follow-up, "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) would buckle under the weight of expectation, become campy and fall on its own light-sabre. Instead it came through as a stronger, definitely darker and a much more mature film than its origin story. As the space opera built up, it introduced new characters, including the lovable Yoda and the rascal, Lando Calrissian, and, as the stakes grew, so did the emotional depth of the characters. The battle scenes on the ice planet Hoth are sensational, our hero loses his hand, Han Solo gets frozen in carbonite and all this occurs before we bear witness to one of the biggest twists in the history of cinema.

Answer: The Dark Knight

Tim Burton created two startling "Batman" films. The first, in 1989, gave us Jack Nicholson playing the villainous "Joker" and Michael Keaton as the "Caped Crusader", in what was a highly acclaimed rendition of a much loved comic book character. The follow up (1992), which featured a delicious performance by Michelle Pfeiffer as the slightly twisted Catwoman (meow) and a riveting, if not disturbing, effort from Danny DeVito as the totally twisted Penguin, continued the journey with class but lacked some of the warmth in the original. Burton was then removed from the director's chair for the next three films, sadly, all descended into camp, farce and nonsense.

Enter Christopher Nolan in 2005 and he gave us a new model "Batman". With an intense Christian Bale in the title role we were given a hero, initially, consumed by revenge, who is reckless and seeks to resolve his issues with his fists or a masochistic form of absolution through pain. He then chooses to lose himself as a means of re-discovering himself. It is here that Nolan shows us how good a story teller he is. He tears us in two with his new hero - on the one hand we want to see him win but, at the same time, we want to scream "Bruce, you're such a pain in the butt, man"!

Where "Batman Begins" (2005) is a great story, the follow up "The Dark Knight" (2008), is a great film. Early in the second movie Nolan delivers to us a man who is now at peace with himself and has managed to find some resolution with his past. He is now looking for a way to pass the mantle of peace keeper to someone else. At the end he does manage to achieve this but only by making himself the villain. In the meantime, his city, is hit with a new scourge in the form of Heath Ledger's "Joker". Ledger's performance as the unhinged clown is remarkable, producing the greatest on-screen villain since Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of the serial killer, Hannibal Lector, in "Silence of the Lambs" (1991).

Answer: Mad Max: The Road Warrior

George Miller completed the original "Mad Max" (1979) on a shoe-string budget of $400,000 (Australian). Despite this he was still able to create for us a disturbing dystopian future where the gangs are the rulers of the streets and the police, almost, have to resort to similar tactics just to stay in the game of maintaining some form of law and order. Miller's skill as a story-teller comes to the fore as he cleverly weaves into this tale a love story between the young policeman (Max Rockatansky, played by Mel Gibson) and his wife and child. When Max's wife and child are killed, Max puts the law on a shelf and, ruthlessly, hunts the gang down.

"Mad Max" would gross in excess of $US100 million and this gave Miller both a bigger budget and greater freedom in putting together the sequel. Miller shifts the location to the near outback where he is able to show society descending into an even greater wasteland. The red dirt and spinifex highlighting that to survive out here you need to be tough. What makes "Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior" (1981) a better film is that there is a better rhythm to this film, the action sequences are frenetic, there's humour there to break the harshness of the tribal warfare and the visual landscape is delivered with greater panache.

"Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" would follow in 1985 but it proved to be a disappointment alongside its predecessors and was not as well received. It would be another thirty years before Miller returned to the franchise but, this time, it was a spectacular return. In "Fury Road" (2015) he introduced us to Furiosa (Charlize Theron), who almost steals the film from Tom Hardy's Max and brings feminism to the fore in what had previously been a male dominated environment. The film would win six Academy Awards and received nominations for Best Picture and Best Director.

Answer: The Bourne Supremacy

In "The Bourne Identity" (2002) we are introduced to Jason Bourne (Matt Damon). His unconscious body has been hauled out of the ocean by a team on a fishing boat. When he awakens he has no idea who he is or what he used to do. The only clue that he has are the details of a Swiss bank account on a chip inserted under his skin. The contents of the bank deposit box then send him on a dash through Europe, as he uncovers that he was (or still may be) a trained killer. His former employers, the US government, feel that he has gone rogue and are in pursuit.

In "The Bourne Supremacy" (2003) Bourne has resolved within himself what he used to do but still has no idea as to who he was. He has relocated on the other side of the globe in a bid to distance himself from it all. The past, as is its want, catches up with him. The Russian mafia is seeking to pin their theft of information on him and take him out of the picture... as dead men can tell no tales. This results in the death of his partner (Marie Kreutz, played by Franka Potente) and brings Bourne back into the game as he tries to put an end to the people pursuing him, get some revenge for the death of Marie and endeavor to make amends for some of his past deeds.

Whereas the first film introduced us to Jason Bourne and his dilemma and we marveled at the protagonist's skills. We were left, somewhat hanging as to who Jason Bourne really was. In many respects, we found ourselves in the same position as the character at the start of the second film. And this is what lifts "The Bourne Supremacy" to the next level. The action happens at breakneck speed and we're left gasping and with racing hearts but it also starts to peel back layers to get a glimpse of who the man used to be. In the same breath we are witnessing Bourne seek to regain his humanity instead of being a cold blooded killer. "The Bourne Ultimatum" would follow in 2007. It would dissolve into, basically, a two hour chase but it was a fitting close to an amazing trilogy. Richard Corliss, of "TIME" Magazine, would write in his review of the film that "the series had come close to attaining a kinetic perfection".

Answer: The Winter Soldier

"Captain America: The First Avenger" (2011) came from the pages of the comic books in the Marvel Comics Universe (MCU) and, in this film, we are introduced to a skinny runt of a kid (Steve Rogers, played by Chris Evans) who desperately wants to join the Army and fight the Nazis. This desire is not borne out of bloodlust but out of courage and an overwhelming sense of what is right. His applications are rejected one after the other but it's the very qualities mentioned above that catch the attention of Dr. Abraham Erskine and he recruits him to use in a "super soldier" programme he'd been working on. It is here that "Captain America" begins to separate itself from many of the super-hero stories that had gone before it. It manages to weave into its fabric a love story (that doesn't get sappy), mate-ship (that doesn't get blokey) and a hero with vulnerabilities that make him human rather than an enhanced buffoon.

Despite all the qualities that I mentioned above, I have to admit that, "The First Avenger" is just a solid movie rather than a good one. Here I've relaxed my stance a little, but only because the follow-up, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014), is such a strong movie. Steve Rogers' best friend, James "Bucky" Barnes, feared dead in the first film returns as Steve's enemy after having being experimented upon and brainwashed by Hydra. But what makes this film better is that it goes deeper than just two enhanced soldiers bashing each other up. Captain America is isolated and is placed at the top of America's most wanted list. He's on the run and he believes his former mentor, Nick Fury, is dead. The government that he has looked up to and supported is now against him... where or whom does he turn to? In many ways this reminds me of the stunning 1975 film "Three Days of the Condor" that saw Robert Redford's Joseph Turner placed in a similar position. The irony is that, on this occasion, the shoe is on the other foot and Redford is the evil genius that wants to bring Captain America's world crashing down.

Answer: The Bride of Frankenstein

As a young man in the late 1970s, one of our weekly highlights was the double feature "old time scary" that was shown at the local drive-in every Sunday night. A lot of them were quite forgettable but the stand out evening was when they revealed James Whale's beautifully crafted "Frankenstein" (1931), followed by the deliciously camp "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935).

"Frankenstein" was a great film and Whale went to great lengths to scare, using all forms of noises, sudden flashes of lightning and, even, a grim reaper like shadow casting itself over the cemetery. But the performance that had me riveted was that of Boris Karloff's. Despite being deprived of dialogue he was still able to produce a nuanced performance switching between looking fearsome and tender with relative ease.

"The Bride of Frankenstein" shed its cloak of seriousness and provided the film with a gentle level of camp that would have improved the original. Frankenstein's monster is lonely and in need of a mate but there are still people out there willing to exploit him. Karloff manages to lift his performance to a higher level in the sequel, raising the temperature of his rage and finding another level of emotional appeal that, somehow, endows his creature with a degree of humanity. As great as Karloff is as the monster, the scene stealer is, undoubtedly, Elsa Lanchester, who plays the titular bride. She truly is a sight for sore eyes with her pallid skin and that crazy bouffant bearing a trendy white streak. Her scream, when she sees her new beau is one to rival Fay Wray's when she first lays eyes on "King Kong" (1933). "Bride..." is a much richer movie thanks to a better developed story. Yes there is terror but there is also pity for a monster that just wants to be loved and all of this is perfectly balanced by the sense of high camp that is woven into the film.

Answer: Terminator 2: Judgement Day

James Cameron's first venture with "The Terminator" (1983) saw him produce a strong finished product that verged on being "ground-breaking". The story sees a human, named Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn), sent back in time to protect a nineteen year old waitress (Sarah Connor, played by Linda Hamilton) from a cyborg assassin (the Terminator, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger). Why? In the future the machines have taken over the world. The humans have mounted a resistance and this is led by John Connor, Sarah's son. The aim is to kill Sarah before she gives birth to John. This is a great concept and Cameron has backed it up with a great story. The master stroke was casting Schwarzenegger as the terminator, rather than as Kyle Reese, as was originally planned. Arnold is perfectly cast as the remorseless and totally relentless, unstoppable, killing machine. The suspense arrives with coming to grips with "how do they kill this thing". (SPOILER) In what is a delightful twist at the end we see Sarah Connor driving off into the distance, heavily pregnant with Kyle's child (Kyle didn't make it by the way)... I will let you work out the math and consequences on that.

In "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" (1991) the concept changed. Sarah Connor has given birth to her son John, who is now ten years old. A new terminator is sent back in time, this time to kill both John and, if necessary, Sarah. Instead of a human being sent back to protect them a re-programmed terminator is given the task. So begins one of the best action films of this generation. On this occasion Cameron had a bigger budget and unconditional support from the studio and was able to imbue the film with some mind-blowing special effects.

That, however, is not why this is a better movie. What Cameron does extremely well is to turn Arnold's terminator from the "bad guy" to the "good guy" by making him the re-programmed machine whose role is that of protector. He manages to turn Sarah Connor from a wimpy waitress into a butt-kicking hell-cat. He introduces John Connor, not as an idealistic future leader but as a young punk who is up to no good. As the story unfolds we begin to understand that all John is really searching for is a father figure and it is sad that he finds this comfort in the form of a machine. These three form an unlikely and disparate family, which somehow works and adds a warmth to the story that is unexpected. It is also a tribute to Cameron's craft that he was able to make the seemingly unstoppable Schwarzenegger appear vulnerable in this sequel.

Answer: Goldfinger

The spy in the question is James Bond and the preceding movie that was spelled out above is "From Russia with Love" (1963). In the old outing the Russian spy agency, SMERSH, is out for revenge on Bond who had disposed of their agent and thwarted their plans in "Dr No" (1962). They are seeking to lure him into a trap with the view of exposing him in a compromising position and then disposing of him. The lure is the supposed defection of a cypher clerk along with a highly prized Lektor decoding device.

In the following movie, "Goldfinger" (1964) Bond sets out to foil the plans of the titular character, Auric Goldfinger, who is looking to irradiate the US Gold Bullion depository in Fort Knox. This, in turn, will see the value of his personal stockpile of gold rise significantly ("I conservatively estimate, ten times" says an unashamed Goldfinger).

Many would argue that these two films represent the two best productions in the "James Bond" pantheon and there would be serious contention as to which of the two is the better. For me the latter shades "From Russia..." but only marginally. Probably the only thing that tips "Goldfinger" over the line is Gert Frobe's blunt delivery of "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die", a line that has become as famous, if not more so than, "Bond, James Bond".

Answer: The Godfather Part II

For all intents and purposes, "The Godfather" should have been a dud. At the helm was Francis Ford Coppola who'd had a poor Hollywood record to that point. The lead actor, Marlon Brando, was labelled a "has been" and the book by Mario Puzo, despite being a best seller, had been described by the New York Times as being "overdramatised". Yet "The Godfather", released in 1972, would win three Oscars, including Best Picture, and be classed as an instant classic. But, it went further. It ushered in a new era in Hollywood film making, creating tougher storylines and took violence to a point where it became a vital part of the story.

So how do you top that? Somehow, Francis Ford Coppola did. With "The Godfather Part II" (1974) he took a risk by structuring the new film as both a sequel and a prequel, telling the tale of the rise of the young Vito Corleone (Robert De Nero) and then showing how the empire began to swell under the guidance of his son Michael (Al Pacino). Michael's story is beautifully crafted by Coppola and Puzo and we watch, fascinated, as his morals begin to decay, his heart begins to harden and the man, who was once the poster child of the family, steadily turns into a monster. To cap it all off the film won six Oscars and created history by becoming the first sequel to win Best Picture.

Answer: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Sergio Leone's "For a Few Dollars More" (1965) and "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" (1966) are the last two pieces in the puzzle that represent his masterpiece "Dollars" trilogy, which is also known as the "Man with No Name" trilogy. Leone refreshed and lent new eyes to a genre that had lost a little of its lustre thanks to some serious competition from police and crime dramas - high speed pursuit cars were more exciting than galloping horses and the Colt 45 was about to be overtaken by the .44 Magnum "the most powerful handgun in the world". Ironically, that's a line that was delivered by actor who would do as much as anyone in Hollywood to maintain the status of the western genre in film.

Leone first introduces us to the "Man with No Name" in "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964), where Eastwood's gunman has stepped into a high stakes game, playing off two warring families against each other. While this is the weak point in Leone's trilogy it is by no means a weak film. It is a supremely well-executed film and it is important because it introduces us to Leone's visual style and Clint Eastwood's first starring role. Leone delves deeper into the gunslinger's psyche, creating a more complex outing with "For a Few Dollars More" in 1965. Eastwood's bounty hunter, nicknamed Manco, is pursing an escaped psychopathic Mexican bandit named "El Indio". On this occasion Eastwood teams up with Colonel Douglas Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef). Manco infiltrates Indio's gang, who are planning to rob the bank in El Paso, whilst Mortimer works against them from the outer. In due course Manco comes to realise that Mortimer's stake in this hunt goes deeper than just a high profile bounty.

For years, I thought that the final film, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" (1966) (GB&U), was the last piece in Leone's jigsaw only to discover that it is a prequel to the first two movies. GB&U takes place during the American Civil War, whereas the first two are set in a later time frame. Clues were dropped along the way. You may notice that the guns in the first two are slightly more modern in nature and, in "For a Few Dollars More" Colonel Mortimer is described as a veteran of the Civil War. So why does "GB&U" stand out above the others. This movie is much more complex as three differing story lines cross paths on a number of occasions that lead to same chase for a cache of gold coins hidden in a cemetery. Then there is Eli Wallach's eccentric performance as the duplicitous Tuco. There was always the risk that Wallach could take away from the main character, however, rather than stealing the show from Eastwood he becomes the perfect compliment. The biggest difference arose (surprisingly) because Leone did not have a great deal of money available to make the movie. His solution was to film a whole heap of silent scenes because they were faster to do and cheaper to make. All of those silences, not only enhanced the film, but provided a lot of space that could be filled with Ennio Morricone's epic score, which gave the film another level of grandeur. Also, let's not forget one of the greatest stand-off scenes in the history of film.