Viewed in
2000
Premise
Something about clones.
Who should watch
Those who like science fiction film noir. Film buffs. Harrison Ford fans.
Thoughts
I liked the mood and noir. After 'Metropolis', this film was credited most for film noir dysutopias. There were some interesting ideas about the future and cloning.
While I do not think it was that great a film, I still recommend it for its pioneering influence.
What I would change
Created a story that made more sense and more interesting characters.
Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts
Conan the Barbarian
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Arnold Schwarzenegger's breakthrough role as Conan the Barbarian.
Liked
Very little.
Hated
Everything else.
Thoughts
There was blood, bulging muscles, and boobs, but I was bored.
I wish I could think of something to compliment, but the only thing I could think of was Conan's hot mom actress. Sadly, nothing else worked for me.
Arnold was obviously a logical choice, given his physical attributes. However his accent was so heavy and indecipherable, it was like listening to a parody. The casting of James Earl Jones was puzzling, since you're asking him to Darth Vader it up in an inferior role, when Star Wars was still on everyone's mind.
The plot was plodding and the magic scenes made no sense. Add the super-serious epic fantasy dialogue ("CROM!!!!"), and you got something so silly that it unintentionally verged into Monty Python territory. While there were multiple sex scenes and naked chicks, not a single one was pretty. Even as guilty pleasure, it failed.
Considering this movie was Schwarzenegger's debut, there was some historical merit, but it still felt like a waste of time. Maybe if I was a twelve year old boy without internet, I might have found the hacking and nudity entertaining.
Lastly, I was shocked to discover the director co-wrote Apocalypse Now, and Oliver Stone was a co-screenwriter. How do you go from Apocalypse Now to this? At least Stone had an excuse that this was an means to an end; all his good stuff came afterward.
What I would change
Not made the movie.
2010
Premise
Arnold Schwarzenegger's breakthrough role as Conan the Barbarian.
Liked
Very little.
Hated
Everything else.
Thoughts
There was blood, bulging muscles, and boobs, but I was bored.
I wish I could think of something to compliment, but the only thing I could think of was Conan's hot mom actress. Sadly, nothing else worked for me.
Arnold was obviously a logical choice, given his physical attributes. However his accent was so heavy and indecipherable, it was like listening to a parody. The casting of James Earl Jones was puzzling, since you're asking him to Darth Vader it up in an inferior role, when Star Wars was still on everyone's mind.
The plot was plodding and the magic scenes made no sense. Add the super-serious epic fantasy dialogue ("CROM!!!!"), and you got something so silly that it unintentionally verged into Monty Python territory. While there were multiple sex scenes and naked chicks, not a single one was pretty. Even as guilty pleasure, it failed.
Considering this movie was Schwarzenegger's debut, there was some historical merit, but it still felt like a waste of time. Maybe if I was a twelve year old boy without internet, I might have found the hacking and nudity entertaining.
Lastly, I was shocked to discover the director co-wrote Apocalypse Now, and Oliver Stone was a co-screenwriter. How do you go from Apocalypse Now to this? At least Stone had an excuse that this was an means to an end; all his good stuff came afterward.
What I would change
Not made the movie.
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
Viewed in
1998, 2011
Formats
VHS, HDTV
Premise
E.T. phone home!
Loved
E.T. and Drew Barrymore.
Liked
Special effects.
Thoughts
After all these years, it still holds up remarkably well, especially the first half.
I could watch this over and over again for two reasons: E.T. and Drew Barrymore. Both are irresistibly adorable who make you want to squeeze them forever. Director Steven Spielberg created one of the most lovable and memorable characters of all time. Innocent aliens in movies were and still are rare. To have one that's enchanting and genuine without being campy or dated is one of a kind.
Spielberg did two great things here. First was using special effects that still endure. The execution of puppetry and "dude in suit" was so well-done that E.T.'s character still looks and feels real, rarely taking me out of the moment. The other great thing was his ability to evoke the audience's primal emotion of sympathy. All the tear-jerking moments, even the undeserving ones, hit the right notes. Even after multiple viewings, my heart get tugged every time.
There were massive flaws. For example, all the adult characters sucked. They were either absent or serving the plot. As for the plot itself, there were quite a few holes, such as why the scientists (or whoever the hell the men in white were) never confiscated the communicator. The writing was all bad, there were some really intelligent stuff about how a lost alien would behave, and some creative sci-fi themes about linked emotions.
Probably the biggest issue for me was that I never loved Henry Thomas as Elliot. He felt like an actor playing a kid, which was all the more starkly apparent compared to Barrymore's natural charm.
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial withstands the test of time, and its uneven writing, due to timeless performances by E.T. and Barrymore, and Spielberg's great execution.
What I would change
Made the adult characters smarter.
1998, 2011
Formats
VHS, HDTV
Premise
E.T. phone home!
Loved
E.T. and Drew Barrymore.
Liked
Special effects.
Thoughts
After all these years, it still holds up remarkably well, especially the first half.
I could watch this over and over again for two reasons: E.T. and Drew Barrymore. Both are irresistibly adorable who make you want to squeeze them forever. Director Steven Spielberg created one of the most lovable and memorable characters of all time. Innocent aliens in movies were and still are rare. To have one that's enchanting and genuine without being campy or dated is one of a kind.
Spielberg did two great things here. First was using special effects that still endure. The execution of puppetry and "dude in suit" was so well-done that E.T.'s character still looks and feels real, rarely taking me out of the moment. The other great thing was his ability to evoke the audience's primal emotion of sympathy. All the tear-jerking moments, even the undeserving ones, hit the right notes. Even after multiple viewings, my heart get tugged every time.
There were massive flaws. For example, all the adult characters sucked. They were either absent or serving the plot. As for the plot itself, there were quite a few holes, such as why the scientists (or whoever the hell the men in white were) never confiscated the communicator. The writing was all bad, there were some really intelligent stuff about how a lost alien would behave, and some creative sci-fi themes about linked emotions.
Probably the biggest issue for me was that I never loved Henry Thomas as Elliot. He felt like an actor playing a kid, which was all the more starkly apparent compared to Barrymore's natural charm.
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial withstands the test of time, and its uneven writing, due to timeless performances by E.T. and Barrymore, and Spielberg's great execution.
What I would change
Made the adult characters smarter.
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Viewed in
2007
Premise
A movie about growing up in high school.
Who should watch
Anyone who's been through high school. Sean Penn fans. Fans of Phoebe Cates' boobs.
Thoughts
This explored lots of high school related issues, especially in terms of sex. It definitely treated the characters and the issues more realistically than 'American Pie'.
Two reasons this was a must-see:
Phoebe Cates
Sean Penn's hilarious stoned-surfer Spicoli.
What I would change
Nothing.
2007
Premise
A movie about growing up in high school.
Who should watch
Anyone who's been through high school. Sean Penn fans. Fans of Phoebe Cates' boobs.
Thoughts
This explored lots of high school related issues, especially in terms of sex. It definitely treated the characters and the issues more realistically than 'American Pie'.
Two reasons this was a must-see:
Phoebe Cates
Sean Penn's hilarious stoned-surfer Spicoli.
What I would change
Nothing.
48 Hrs.
Viewed in
2010
Formats
Netflix streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
A detective (Nick Nolte) is forced to team up with a petty thief (Eddie Murphy) to catch a couple of cop killers.
Loved
The chemistry between Murphy and Nolte.
Thoughts
It started off as a standard 1970's gritty cop drama, then Murphy finally showed up. Watching both play off each other, launching racially-charged ball-busting venom made me laugh out loud non-stop. Best scene ever was was Murphy pretending to be a police officer in a very vanilla redneck bar, and he proceeded to undress everyone with wit.
Even though it was made in 1982, it had a lot of 1970's sensibilities. As mentioned, the story and style was gritty and realistic, I liked the how it was full of police jargon and it never bothered to dumb it down for the audience. Another moment was the artsy-fartsy elongated single shot of Nolte interacting with multiple characters as the choreographed camera had to weave through and pan to different actors non-stop.
Shockingly, this was the first time I've seen Nick Nolte act, but he was really effective here as the growling grumpy gumshoe, playing low-key next to Murphy's fast-talking jive. It was kind of unintentionally funny that Nolte's character was alcoholic.
Another amusing thing was James Horner's unusual, distracting score. I had already known him for his wood-wind heavy orchestral score, so I was surprised that he could do old gritty cop dramas (including the obligatory lonely saxophone). What made it distracting was the experimentation with incongruous instruments, like synthesizers and calypso drums, even though they were in San Fransisco.
The cop drama stuff was okay, but it was all about Nolte and Murphy flinging hatred, bile and venom at each other that made this hilarious and entertaining.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
Continuity error in the first act: Nolte and a handcuffed Murphy get into Nolte's convertible, next shot is a long shot of them driving in the streets, and Murphy's arms are clearly not cuffed, followed by them reaching their destination, and Murphy is cuffed again.
2010
Formats
Netflix streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
A detective (Nick Nolte) is forced to team up with a petty thief (Eddie Murphy) to catch a couple of cop killers.
Loved
The chemistry between Murphy and Nolte.
Thoughts
It started off as a standard 1970's gritty cop drama, then Murphy finally showed up. Watching both play off each other, launching racially-charged ball-busting venom made me laugh out loud non-stop. Best scene ever was was Murphy pretending to be a police officer in a very vanilla redneck bar, and he proceeded to undress everyone with wit.
Even though it was made in 1982, it had a lot of 1970's sensibilities. As mentioned, the story and style was gritty and realistic, I liked the how it was full of police jargon and it never bothered to dumb it down for the audience. Another moment was the artsy-fartsy elongated single shot of Nolte interacting with multiple characters as the choreographed camera had to weave through and pan to different actors non-stop.
Shockingly, this was the first time I've seen Nick Nolte act, but he was really effective here as the growling grumpy gumshoe, playing low-key next to Murphy's fast-talking jive. It was kind of unintentionally funny that Nolte's character was alcoholic.
Another amusing thing was James Horner's unusual, distracting score. I had already known him for his wood-wind heavy orchestral score, so I was surprised that he could do old gritty cop dramas (including the obligatory lonely saxophone). What made it distracting was the experimentation with incongruous instruments, like synthesizers and calypso drums, even though they were in San Fransisco.
The cop drama stuff was okay, but it was all about Nolte and Murphy flinging hatred, bile and venom at each other that made this hilarious and entertaining.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
Continuity error in the first act: Nolte and a handcuffed Murphy get into Nolte's convertible, next shot is a long shot of them driving in the streets, and Murphy's arms are clearly not cuffed, followed by them reaching their destination, and Murphy is cuffed again.
Pink Floyd the Wall
Viewed in
2008
Premise
A musical by Pink Floyd.
Who should watch
Pink Floyd fans.
Thoughts
As a fan of Pink Floyd music, I thought it was a cool film.
As expected, there was trippy animation and imagery set to some great Pink Floyd music. I was pleasantly surprised by a mostly cohesive storyline. Also, there were actual themes driving each scene, not just for the heck of throwing people for a loop. I understood the themes of isolation and the mass dehumanizing of society.
The only flaw I saw was the last act. I had trouble following the storyline, as I was not sure if that was in his head or not, and if not, then how did the main character get there?
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
What was up with that movie-in-a-movie about an army with a black dog named after the N-word?
2008
Premise
A musical by Pink Floyd.
Who should watch
Pink Floyd fans.
Thoughts
As a fan of Pink Floyd music, I thought it was a cool film.
As expected, there was trippy animation and imagery set to some great Pink Floyd music. I was pleasantly surprised by a mostly cohesive storyline. Also, there were actual themes driving each scene, not just for the heck of throwing people for a loop. I understood the themes of isolation and the mass dehumanizing of society.
The only flaw I saw was the last act. I had trouble following the storyline, as I was not sure if that was in his head or not, and if not, then how did the main character get there?
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
What was up with that movie-in-a-movie about an army with a black dog named after the N-word?
Rambo: First Blood
Viewed in
2007
Premise
A disturbed Vietnam vet takes on a dictator sheriff of a small town.
Who should watch
Anyone who needs a movie for a drinking game.
Thoughts
Due to its popularity, I was expecting a badass Rambo saving America or doing something cool. Instead, well, I think the premise gives a good idea about how ridiculous the movie was.
The climax of him blowing stuff up in town with his 'compensating for something' machine gun made me want to stop the movie and rewatch 'UHF'.
What I would change
Not bothered making this movie.
2007
Premise
A disturbed Vietnam vet takes on a dictator sheriff of a small town.
Who should watch
Anyone who needs a movie for a drinking game.
Thoughts
Due to its popularity, I was expecting a badass Rambo saving America or doing something cool. Instead, well, I think the premise gives a good idea about how ridiculous the movie was.
The climax of him blowing stuff up in town with his 'compensating for something' machine gun made me want to stop the movie and rewatch 'UHF'.
What I would change
Not bothered making this movie.
Rocky 3
Viewed in
2008
Premise
After losing his title to a hungry newcomer, Rocky and old nemesis Apollo Creed team up to find the 'Eye of the Tiger', which sounds like something Indiana Jones should be looking for.
Who should watch
Fans of the franchise. Mr. T fans.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, this movie was quite a drop off in quality compared to the first two.
Mr. T was perfect as the intimidating, ferocious challenger to Rocky's complacent reign. I liked the parallels that Rocky was now the Apollo Creed in the match up. Talia Shire finally got some juicy lines when her character gives Rocky a pep talk.
Unlike 'Rocky 2', the storytelling of the boxing matches made sense. I understood the strategy to change Rocky from a punching bag into a speedster, and I saw the results of that strategy.
But now that Rocky was rich and famous, I found it hard to emotionally connect to that once-lovable character. It was the same feeling as watching Lois Lane and Clark Kent get married in 'The Adventures of Lois and Clark'.
Add on to Rocky's often-parodied speaking style, every thing became campier. Even Mickey's retirement could not elicit much emotion out of me. I partially blame Bill Simmons for bashing the Apollo-Rocky training sequences, especially the unintentionally hilarious man-hug. Lastly, I was disappointed by Hulk Hogan's cameo. For such a charismatic person, he was stiff and boring.
Unless you really love Rocky or Mr. T, there was no need to see this movie.
What I would change
Put in more realistic complications for Rocky involving his fame. This was not the Rocky I know and love.
2008
Premise
After losing his title to a hungry newcomer, Rocky and old nemesis Apollo Creed team up to find the 'Eye of the Tiger', which sounds like something Indiana Jones should be looking for.
Who should watch
Fans of the franchise. Mr. T fans.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, this movie was quite a drop off in quality compared to the first two.
Mr. T was perfect as the intimidating, ferocious challenger to Rocky's complacent reign. I liked the parallels that Rocky was now the Apollo Creed in the match up. Talia Shire finally got some juicy lines when her character gives Rocky a pep talk.
Unlike 'Rocky 2', the storytelling of the boxing matches made sense. I understood the strategy to change Rocky from a punching bag into a speedster, and I saw the results of that strategy.
But now that Rocky was rich and famous, I found it hard to emotionally connect to that once-lovable character. It was the same feeling as watching Lois Lane and Clark Kent get married in 'The Adventures of Lois and Clark'.
Add on to Rocky's often-parodied speaking style, every thing became campier. Even Mickey's retirement could not elicit much emotion out of me. I partially blame Bill Simmons for bashing the Apollo-Rocky training sequences, especially the unintentionally hilarious man-hug. Lastly, I was disappointed by Hulk Hogan's cameo. For such a charismatic person, he was stiff and boring.
Unless you really love Rocky or Mr. T, there was no need to see this movie.
What I would change
Put in more realistic complications for Rocky involving his fame. This was not the Rocky I know and love.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Viewed in
1999, 2011
Formats
VHS, HDTV
Premise
KHAAAAAN! 'Nuff said.
Loved
Pretty much everything.
Thoughts
Holds up amazingly well as not just one of the best Star Trek films of all time, but one of the best science fiction films of all time.
The writing was fantastic. It had the perfect mixture of lively dialog, a thrilling cat-and-mouse space chase, Moby Dick allegories, intellectual debates, cool twists, and great characters pushed to their limits. Thanks to the strong emphasis on story and character, the actors seemed to be really invested and put in their best performances.
I loved what the film makers did with my three favorite characters from the series. DeForest Kelley was at his sarcastic and grumpy best as Bones, and was spared from spouting the obligatory "He's dead, Jim" line. Words cannot justifiably describe Leonard Nimoy's/Spock's greatness in the last twenty minutes. And Ricardo Montalban's portrayal of Khan's obsession almost made me sympathize with him. As for Shatner's Kirk, there is no word needed to explain his equally immortal and mocked "Khan!" moment.
Historically, there were some significant moments worth noting, such as maintaining the series' legacy by using one it's best antagonists, as well as Kristie Alley's debut as a hot Vulcan. Techno-philes should recognize Ed Catmull and his pioneering computer graphics.
If I had to nitpick, it would be that Khan's character was bit underwhelming in the intimidating and magnetic presence department compared to the "Space Seed" episode. Also, it would've been nice to see Dr. Chapel and Yeoman Rand again.
Even after multiple viewings decades later, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was still immensely enjoyable. I think even more if you've seen Montalban's episode from the series.
What I would change
Nothing.
1999, 2011
Formats
VHS, HDTV
Premise
KHAAAAAN! 'Nuff said.
Loved
Pretty much everything.
Thoughts
Holds up amazingly well as not just one of the best Star Trek films of all time, but one of the best science fiction films of all time.
The writing was fantastic. It had the perfect mixture of lively dialog, a thrilling cat-and-mouse space chase, Moby Dick allegories, intellectual debates, cool twists, and great characters pushed to their limits. Thanks to the strong emphasis on story and character, the actors seemed to be really invested and put in their best performances.
I loved what the film makers did with my three favorite characters from the series. DeForest Kelley was at his sarcastic and grumpy best as Bones, and was spared from spouting the obligatory "He's dead, Jim" line. Words cannot justifiably describe Leonard Nimoy's/Spock's greatness in the last twenty minutes. And Ricardo Montalban's portrayal of Khan's obsession almost made me sympathize with him. As for Shatner's Kirk, there is no word needed to explain his equally immortal and mocked "Khan!" moment.
Historically, there were some significant moments worth noting, such as maintaining the series' legacy by using one it's best antagonists, as well as Kristie Alley's debut as a hot Vulcan. Techno-philes should recognize Ed Catmull and his pioneering computer graphics.
If I had to nitpick, it would be that Khan's character was bit underwhelming in the intimidating and magnetic presence department compared to the "Space Seed" episode. Also, it would've been nice to see Dr. Chapel and Yeoman Rand again.
Even after multiple viewings decades later, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was still immensely enjoyable. I think even more if you've seen Montalban's episode from the series.
What I would change
Nothing.
Tootsie
Viewed in
1997
Formats
VHS
Premise
Dustin Hoffman stars as an actor who pretends to be a woman to revive his career.
Thoughts
Don't remember much, but I thought it was okay funny and overrated. Then again, I was young and liked Mrs. Doubtfire =P
What I would change
No idea.
1997
Formats
VHS
Premise
Dustin Hoffman stars as an actor who pretends to be a woman to revive his career.
Thoughts
Don't remember much, but I thought it was okay funny and overrated. Then again, I was young and liked Mrs. Doubtfire =P
What I would change
No idea.
Tron
Viewed in
1989, 2007, 2010 (2)
Formats
VHS, DVD
Premise
Jeff Bridges stars in the classic about a computer programmer gets sucked into the digital world by a killer computer program bent on dominating the world.
Loved
The ground-breaking computer graphics, the score.
Thoughts
Despite being outdated, the charm and importance of the film still held up after all these years and multiple viewings.
Being too young to appreciate its significance, I could only imagine how earth-shattering it must have felt when this came out in 1982 with never seen before, free-flowing computer animation. Perhaps the closest for me was watching The Matrix for the first time. While I chuckled at the countable polygons nearly three decades later, I still greatly appreciate the visuals to this very day, like a Ray Harryhausen flick. Those Lightcycles will forever dance in my imagination.
Just as important was Wendy Carlos' classic score. It was an ambitious gamble to employ an avant-garde artist to create music that was a perfect fit and just as mind-blowing as the visuals, and it paid off brilliantly. For me, the fantastical animation and trippy electronic music go hand-in-hand.
Obviously, as a whole, the film clearly lacked in character and plot. While I enjoyed The Wizard of Oz aspect of characters and their digital avatars, they were not that interesting. As for plot, it was best to not bother with questions about how does a person physically survive as 0's and 1's, as well as the purpose of sexualized programs.
It may not be a complete film, but its pioneering computer graphics, memorable score, and cinematic significance greatly outweigh the flaws. Definitely worth seeing once in your lifetime. And no, you do not need to be stoned to enjoy it.
What I would change
Nothing.
1989, 2007, 2010 (2)
Formats
VHS, DVD
Premise
Jeff Bridges stars in the classic about a computer programmer gets sucked into the digital world by a killer computer program bent on dominating the world.
Loved
The ground-breaking computer graphics, the score.
Thoughts
Despite being outdated, the charm and importance of the film still held up after all these years and multiple viewings.
Being too young to appreciate its significance, I could only imagine how earth-shattering it must have felt when this came out in 1982 with never seen before, free-flowing computer animation. Perhaps the closest for me was watching The Matrix for the first time. While I chuckled at the countable polygons nearly three decades later, I still greatly appreciate the visuals to this very day, like a Ray Harryhausen flick. Those Lightcycles will forever dance in my imagination.
Just as important was Wendy Carlos' classic score. It was an ambitious gamble to employ an avant-garde artist to create music that was a perfect fit and just as mind-blowing as the visuals, and it paid off brilliantly. For me, the fantastical animation and trippy electronic music go hand-in-hand.
Obviously, as a whole, the film clearly lacked in character and plot. While I enjoyed The Wizard of Oz aspect of characters and their digital avatars, they were not that interesting. As for plot, it was best to not bother with questions about how does a person physically survive as 0's and 1's, as well as the purpose of sexualized programs.
It may not be a complete film, but its pioneering computer graphics, memorable score, and cinematic significance greatly outweigh the flaws. Definitely worth seeing once in your lifetime. And no, you do not need to be stoned to enjoy it.
What I would change
Nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)