Viewed in
2009
Premise
Michael Dudikoff stars as a mysterious amnesiac American soldier with mysterious ninjitsu skills.
Who should watch
Those who like unintentional comedy.
Thoughts
A classic example of hilariously bad 1980's movies.
Things I loved: Dudikoff's wimpy voice, the Frenchman named Ortega, the racial stereotypes, the annoying female lead, the lack of continuity such as the female lead's length-changing skirt, the ninja training camp (including playground swing set), the Black Star Ninja who cheats and the mustached master.
My favorite thing was the score, which sounded like an A-Team episode with an annoying trumpet melody. To top that off, the composer crammed every type of Asian percussion and cues into every musical nook, probably with a synthesizer.
I give this an eight out of ten on the Unintentional Comedy Scale.
What I would change
The black guy should not have low-blowed the bad guy in the muscle-man fight. Good guys are honorable fighters who pummel their enemies into submission in a pool of blood.
Random
Reason number two for why I stay to watch the entire credits: they released a novelization of the movie on paperback! Unfortunately, my friend who worships this movie never knew that his entire life, and now they are out of print.
Also, the black dude and the female lead were also in 'Weird Science'.
Showing posts with label 1985. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1985. Show all posts
Back to the Future
Viewed in
2009 (I've seen this trilogy in bits in pieces plenty of times in the past, so I don't count those as real viewings.)
Premise
Michael J. Fox accidentally time-travels back to when his parents were in high school, and he must find a way to get them to fall in love while try to get back home to 1985.
Who should watch
Everyone!
Thoughts
Arguably the film of the decade. Pretty much everything about it was great.
I loved the writing, especially how it made time-travel paradoxes accessible to the average moviegoer, while still keeping the story intelligent and entertaining. Scientifically, I know watching a photo change does not really make sense, but it's a great cinematic symbol for the state of the situation. The consequences and details were really well fleshed-out, and I'm sure multiple viewings would reveal wonderful insights and nuance.
The acting was fantastic. Not only was his acting excellent, Fox's size was a great way to show the underdog aspect, especially when comparing his character to Biff. But the acting crown goes to the one and only Crispin Glover as the nerdy George McFly. Words cannot describe how bizarre, weird, and demented, yet perfect his performance was in this film.
While I had seen this film in pieces in the past, this was the first time I got to finally watch it in one sitting, and despite watching it nearly 25 years too late, it amazingly holds up. On top of the writing and acting, I think it remains timeless because the story allowed the film to be a relatively low-budget science fiction adventure. The film makers portrayed the 1950's and 1980's America correctly, and there was very little need for special effects. (This will be an important point when you read my review for the sequel.)
This must-see film was a masterpiece and my favorite of the trilogy.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I think there was a continuity issue. Early in the film (in 1955), Marty was seen wearing Converse shoes when he invented the skateboard, but during the climax (still in 1955), he wore Nikes.
2009 (I've seen this trilogy in bits in pieces plenty of times in the past, so I don't count those as real viewings.)
Premise
Michael J. Fox accidentally time-travels back to when his parents were in high school, and he must find a way to get them to fall in love while try to get back home to 1985.
Who should watch
Everyone!
Thoughts
Arguably the film of the decade. Pretty much everything about it was great.
I loved the writing, especially how it made time-travel paradoxes accessible to the average moviegoer, while still keeping the story intelligent and entertaining. Scientifically, I know watching a photo change does not really make sense, but it's a great cinematic symbol for the state of the situation. The consequences and details were really well fleshed-out, and I'm sure multiple viewings would reveal wonderful insights and nuance.
The acting was fantastic. Not only was his acting excellent, Fox's size was a great way to show the underdog aspect, especially when comparing his character to Biff. But the acting crown goes to the one and only Crispin Glover as the nerdy George McFly. Words cannot describe how bizarre, weird, and demented, yet perfect his performance was in this film.
While I had seen this film in pieces in the past, this was the first time I got to finally watch it in one sitting, and despite watching it nearly 25 years too late, it amazingly holds up. On top of the writing and acting, I think it remains timeless because the story allowed the film to be a relatively low-budget science fiction adventure. The film makers portrayed the 1950's and 1980's America correctly, and there was very little need for special effects. (This will be an important point when you read my review for the sequel.)
This must-see film was a masterpiece and my favorite of the trilogy.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I think there was a continuity issue. Early in the film (in 1955), Marty was seen wearing Converse shoes when he invented the skateboard, but during the climax (still in 1955), he wore Nikes.
Better Off Dead
Viewed in
1999, 2001, 2002, 2009
Premise
When John Cusack is dumped by his high school girlfriend, he considers suicide to get her attention.
Who should watch
Those who like unintentionally funny movies.
Thoughts
The greatest worst movie ever made!
There are plenty of bad movies that score on the Unintentional Comedy Scale because they were trying to be serious. This is a gem because the movie was TRYING to be funny.
Prepare for horrible, nonsensical scenes involving obsessive ex-boyfriends, nerds, blue bacon, spaceships, Asian racers, math, homicidal paperboys, aardvark suits, and drinking lighter fluid.
I recommend using this movie as a drinking game, in which you take a shot when there is a 'WTF' moment.
What I would change
Nothing. Actually, the stop-motion hamburgers were probably a little over the top.
Random
Guy who voiced Eek the Cat is his sidekick.
1999, 2001, 2002, 2009
Premise
When John Cusack is dumped by his high school girlfriend, he considers suicide to get her attention.
Who should watch
Those who like unintentionally funny movies.
Thoughts
The greatest worst movie ever made!
There are plenty of bad movies that score on the Unintentional Comedy Scale because they were trying to be serious. This is a gem because the movie was TRYING to be funny.
Prepare for horrible, nonsensical scenes involving obsessive ex-boyfriends, nerds, blue bacon, spaceships, Asian racers, math, homicidal paperboys, aardvark suits, and drinking lighter fluid.
I recommend using this movie as a drinking game, in which you take a shot when there is a 'WTF' moment.
What I would change
Nothing. Actually, the stop-motion hamburgers were probably a little over the top.
Random
Guy who voiced Eek the Cat is his sidekick.
Brazil
Viewed in
2007, 2012
Premise
Terry Gilliam's dystopian epic of a clerk whose world is turned upside down.
Format
DVD, HDTV
Liked
Trippy visuals, comedic performances, satirical insight.
Disliked
Cheap ending.
Thoughts
As expected, it was crazy ass weird. Gilliam filled the movie with funky camera angles and trippy fantastic imagery. Big ups to whoever built those jaw-dropping set designs.
Underneath/despite the off-kilter visuals, there was substance to go with the style. I very much enjoyed the darkly comedic performances from Sir Ian Holm, Robert DeNiro, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, and the late great Graham Chapman. Jonathan Pryce was perfectly cast as the desperate loser lead.
In addition, the story has some really sharp/still relevant/spookily prophetic barbs about inhumane metropolis, advertising overflow, burgeoning bureaucracy, oversized vehicles, cosmetic surgery, our reliance on complicated gadgets. Unironically, it correctly predicted flat screen televisions.
Upon second viewing, I was disappointed in the last act. It came off as a cop out, a cheap excuse to flood the feature with bizarre eye candy. Or I've become too wary of such types of twists.
I used to think Brazil was Terry Gilliam's best. Now, I'm leaning towards Twelve Monkeys. Nevertheless, for film buffs, this was still a must-see. Though one time may be enough.
2007, 2012
Premise
Terry Gilliam's dystopian epic of a clerk whose world is turned upside down.
Format
DVD, HDTV
Liked
Trippy visuals, comedic performances, satirical insight.
Disliked
Cheap ending.
Thoughts
As expected, it was crazy ass weird. Gilliam filled the movie with funky camera angles and trippy fantastic imagery. Big ups to whoever built those jaw-dropping set designs.
Underneath/despite the off-kilter visuals, there was substance to go with the style. I very much enjoyed the darkly comedic performances from Sir Ian Holm, Robert DeNiro, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, and the late great Graham Chapman. Jonathan Pryce was perfectly cast as the desperate loser lead.
In addition, the story has some really sharp/still relevant/spookily prophetic barbs about inhumane metropolis, advertising overflow, burgeoning bureaucracy, oversized vehicles, cosmetic surgery, our reliance on complicated gadgets. Unironically, it correctly predicted flat screen televisions.
Upon second viewing, I was disappointed in the last act. It came off as a cop out, a cheap excuse to flood the feature with bizarre eye candy. Or I've become too wary of such types of twists.
I used to think Brazil was Terry Gilliam's best. Now, I'm leaning towards Twelve Monkeys. Nevertheless, for film buffs, this was still a must-see. Though one time may be enough.
Brewster's Millions
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Richard Pryor plays a minor league pitcher, who is given the chance to win $300 million dollars, if he can spend $30 million in a month.
Liked
Pryor's performance, interesting premise.
Thoughts
A funny, charming film.
Without the late great Pryor, this film would be preposterous. His naturally lovable presence made it easy to root for as his character jumped through all sorts of hurdles. John Candy also put in some funny work as the wise-cracking sidekick, without being a wise-ass.
As silly as the premise is, it was unique, and definitely sparked a lengthy argument at work about what one would do if put in the same situation. How he accomplished his spending was quite ingenious at times and hilarious. Also, I liked the subplot of him trying to reach the pros.
The weaknesses in the film, aside from the barely plausible premise, were the predictable subplots, and wooden performances by the others. While I sometimes got confused by the rules of the game or simply the numbers, I could still tell basically what was happening.
Thanks to Pryor's performance, I had a fun time with this interesting (though hard to believe) concept of a film. I wonder if this kind of film could be remade, because the economics of such a premise would be very different in today's digital world. Would still need a charismatic lead though.
What I would change
Nothing.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Richard Pryor plays a minor league pitcher, who is given the chance to win $300 million dollars, if he can spend $30 million in a month.
Liked
Pryor's performance, interesting premise.
Thoughts
A funny, charming film.
Without the late great Pryor, this film would be preposterous. His naturally lovable presence made it easy to root for as his character jumped through all sorts of hurdles. John Candy also put in some funny work as the wise-cracking sidekick, without being a wise-ass.
As silly as the premise is, it was unique, and definitely sparked a lengthy argument at work about what one would do if put in the same situation. How he accomplished his spending was quite ingenious at times and hilarious. Also, I liked the subplot of him trying to reach the pros.
The weaknesses in the film, aside from the barely plausible premise, were the predictable subplots, and wooden performances by the others. While I sometimes got confused by the rules of the game or simply the numbers, I could still tell basically what was happening.
Thanks to Pryor's performance, I had a fun time with this interesting (though hard to believe) concept of a film. I wonder if this kind of film could be remade, because the economics of such a premise would be very different in today's digital world. Would still need a charismatic lead though.
What I would change
Nothing.
Clue
Viewed in
2001
Formats
DVD
Premise
The movie adaptation of the board game.
Thoughts
I recall enjoying it a lot, thanks to silly performances by the cast, especially Tim Curry. Also, I remember liking the cool idea of different, multiple endings.
What I would change
No idea.
2001
Formats
DVD
Premise
The movie adaptation of the board game.
Thoughts
I recall enjoying it a lot, thanks to silly performances by the cast, especially Tim Curry. Also, I remember liking the cool idea of different, multiple endings.
What I would change
No idea.
Cocoon
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Wilford Brimley stars as a member of an old folks home who discovers the neighbor's swimming pool has rejuvenating powers.
Liked
Themes of aging.
Disliked
Outdated vibe.
Thoughts
Interesting but hard to enjoy.
I liked that the aliens were benevolent, going against type. I also enjoyed the thought-provoking themes and discussions about aging, mortality, and roles of the elderly family members. It was definitely arguable whether some characters did the right thing in the end.
However, there were many outdated aspects to the movie. For example, the alien designs were the typical large-eyed, green-skinned humanoids. Special effects were archaic, except for the well-done puppetry in one scene. Plot logic and pacing also did not age well. It was implausible to believe they could keep a secret for that long. In addition, if the mothership was so powerful, why couldn't it just grab the cocoons by itself? Lastly, Steve Guttenberg's character was flat out annoying.
Cocoon had some good ideas, but overall, time was not kind to this movie.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Wilford Brimley stars as a member of an old folks home who discovers the neighbor's swimming pool has rejuvenating powers.
Liked
Themes of aging.
Disliked
Outdated vibe.
Thoughts
Interesting but hard to enjoy.
I liked that the aliens were benevolent, going against type. I also enjoyed the thought-provoking themes and discussions about aging, mortality, and roles of the elderly family members. It was definitely arguable whether some characters did the right thing in the end.
However, there were many outdated aspects to the movie. For example, the alien designs were the typical large-eyed, green-skinned humanoids. Special effects were archaic, except for the well-done puppetry in one scene. Plot logic and pacing also did not age well. It was implausible to believe they could keep a secret for that long. In addition, if the mothership was so powerful, why couldn't it just grab the cocoons by itself? Lastly, Steve Guttenberg's character was flat out annoying.
Cocoon had some good ideas, but overall, time was not kind to this movie.
Godzilla 1985 (dubbed)
Viewed in
1992
Premise
Godzilla attacks Japan again.
Who should watch
Godzilla fans.
Thoughts
After a decade of trippy, goofy Godzilla flicks, the moviemakers went for darker and realisism. With better special effects, it was one of the better Godzilla movies. Also, it had the return of Raymond Burr's character.
What I would change
Nothing.
1992
Premise
Godzilla attacks Japan again.
Who should watch
Godzilla fans.
Thoughts
After a decade of trippy, goofy Godzilla flicks, the moviemakers went for darker and realisism. With better special effects, it was one of the better Godzilla movies. Also, it had the return of Raymond Burr's character.
What I would change
Nothing.
Goonies
Viewed in
2008
Premise
A bunch of kids find adventure by looking for lost pirate booty on the Oregon coast.
Who should watch
Those who like energetic, family-friendly action flicks.
Thoughts
A very fun film to watch.
I credit Richard Donner's directing style. Sometimes unrealistic and goofy, it was the perfect style for a pure adventure involving kids. Even when there were dead bodies and skeletons, there was never a sense of grave danger or a mean-spirit. A pirate treasure hunt should be over-the-top and fantastic.
Another strength of the film was the child actors. The energy radiating from them powered each scene. I loved all the little moments of them running amok and wrecking havoc like real kids.
Looking at the cast, there were quite a few who went on to be famous, or infamous. I barely recognized a skinny Sean Astin, but Josh Brolin's eyebrows were still the same. Thankfully, Jonathan Ke Quan was not as annoying as when he was in 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'. And apparently, Joe Pantoliano was bald at an early age.
Had I seen this in my youth, I probably would have covered my ears every time I heard a cuss word, covered my eyes every time I saw a dead body, and uncovered them every time there was an up skirt shot of Andy. And of course, Sloth would have given me nightmares.
This was another 'right of passage' film for kids. I loved the blend of danger, excitement, and zany child antics. Definitely a must-see.
By the way, I would consider 'Goonies' a borderline PG-13 movie, because of all the cussing, dead bodies and skeletons.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
After watching, I found out there was a deleted scene with an octopus. However, the film makers left in the scene where a character mentioned it. Which explained my confusion when I heard that character say it.
2008
Premise
A bunch of kids find adventure by looking for lost pirate booty on the Oregon coast.
Who should watch
Those who like energetic, family-friendly action flicks.
Thoughts
A very fun film to watch.
I credit Richard Donner's directing style. Sometimes unrealistic and goofy, it was the perfect style for a pure adventure involving kids. Even when there were dead bodies and skeletons, there was never a sense of grave danger or a mean-spirit. A pirate treasure hunt should be over-the-top and fantastic.
Another strength of the film was the child actors. The energy radiating from them powered each scene. I loved all the little moments of them running amok and wrecking havoc like real kids.
Looking at the cast, there were quite a few who went on to be famous, or infamous. I barely recognized a skinny Sean Astin, but Josh Brolin's eyebrows were still the same. Thankfully, Jonathan Ke Quan was not as annoying as when he was in 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'. And apparently, Joe Pantoliano was bald at an early age.
Had I seen this in my youth, I probably would have covered my ears every time I heard a cuss word, covered my eyes every time I saw a dead body, and uncovered them every time there was an up skirt shot of Andy. And of course, Sloth would have given me nightmares.
This was another 'right of passage' film for kids. I loved the blend of danger, excitement, and zany child antics. Definitely a must-see.
By the way, I would consider 'Goonies' a borderline PG-13 movie, because of all the cussing, dead bodies and skeletons.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
After watching, I found out there was a deleted scene with an octopus. However, the film makers left in the scene where a character mentioned it. Which explained my confusion when I heard that character say it.
Pale Rider
Viewed in
2010
Premise
A small group of gold diggers are bullied by a greedy businessman, until Clint Eastwood the preacher appears.
Loved
Clint Eastwood as ninja cowboy.
Disliked
Subplots.
Thoughts
It was pretty much what I was hoping for out of a Clint Eastwood western.
Eastwood still had his badass fastball, with a steely stare that would induce soiled pants out of any grizzled henchman. It seemed to shout out to his Sergio Leone days, as his preacher character was nameless and spoke little. The fun twist was his Batman/ninja-like fighting style, disappearing into thin air while surgically dispatching baddies with stealth.
While the fights were cool, I was amused that his spurs jingled every time he walked, but was able to remain silent whenever he was in "ninja cowboy" mode. Other amusing aspects were the Avatar-like pro-environmental themes and Jaws from the James Bond films.
The subplots were the weakest link. Some were silly and illogical, like the daughter visiting the bad guys' camp. What did she plan to accomplish there, and how could she not expect to get into trouble? Her only reason for being there was to get rescued by the plot. The awkward love triangle between preacher, mother and daughter was unbearable to watch.
Obviously not a great film, but as an Eastwood fan, I definitely enjoyed it a lot. Now why has no one created a pure "ninja cowboy" movie?
What I would change
Fixed the lighting. There were times when I could not tell what I was looking at in the dark, or in a log cabin.
2010
Premise
A small group of gold diggers are bullied by a greedy businessman, until Clint Eastwood the preacher appears.
Loved
Clint Eastwood as ninja cowboy.
Disliked
Subplots.
Thoughts
It was pretty much what I was hoping for out of a Clint Eastwood western.
Eastwood still had his badass fastball, with a steely stare that would induce soiled pants out of any grizzled henchman. It seemed to shout out to his Sergio Leone days, as his preacher character was nameless and spoke little. The fun twist was his Batman/ninja-like fighting style, disappearing into thin air while surgically dispatching baddies with stealth.
While the fights were cool, I was amused that his spurs jingled every time he walked, but was able to remain silent whenever he was in "ninja cowboy" mode. Other amusing aspects were the Avatar-like pro-environmental themes and Jaws from the James Bond films.
The subplots were the weakest link. Some were silly and illogical, like the daughter visiting the bad guys' camp. What did she plan to accomplish there, and how could she not expect to get into trouble? Her only reason for being there was to get rescued by the plot. The awkward love triangle between preacher, mother and daughter was unbearable to watch.
Obviously not a great film, but as an Eastwood fan, I definitely enjoyed it a lot. Now why has no one created a pure "ninja cowboy" movie?
What I would change
Fixed the lighting. There were times when I could not tell what I was looking at in the dark, or in a log cabin.
Ran
Viewed in
1999, 2002, 2008
Premise
Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece reinterpretation of Shakespeares's 'King Lear' for feudal Japan.
Who should watch
Those who enjoy epics.
Thoughts
Those was one of my favorite epics of all time.
The first thing I noticed was the wonderful use of colors throughout the film. Not only did it make it easy to tell all the characters apart, but there was a visual poetry as if Kurosawa was a painter. The scope and action was just magnificent to behold, as the film takes full advantage of every inch of the screen with colors, death, fire, castles, and lush landscapes. Words cannot describe the beauty, sadness and majesty that Kurosawa was able to evoke.
This would be nothing without a story. In the midst of epic action and overacting, there were many wonderful moments of tragedy and sorrow. Usually, I have trouble telling characters apart in military-themed films, since solders usually look alike, but thanks to great writing, I never had that problem. I also usually get lost in political maneuvering, but I could clearly tell who was doing what to whom. While everyone did great, and the actor who played the ousted lord driven mad was excellent, it was the actress who played Lady Kaede who stole the show. I love love loved this character, as she manipulated everyone with deadly precision to fulfill her revenge.
By today's standards, some of the blood special effects looked dated, but to dislike a film because of that is folly.
I cherish this masterpiece for great storytelling of sorrow and sins, and astounding epic action without any computer graphics.
What I would change
Nothing.
1999, 2002, 2008
Premise
Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece reinterpretation of Shakespeares's 'King Lear' for feudal Japan.
Who should watch
Those who enjoy epics.
Thoughts
Those was one of my favorite epics of all time.
The first thing I noticed was the wonderful use of colors throughout the film. Not only did it make it easy to tell all the characters apart, but there was a visual poetry as if Kurosawa was a painter. The scope and action was just magnificent to behold, as the film takes full advantage of every inch of the screen with colors, death, fire, castles, and lush landscapes. Words cannot describe the beauty, sadness and majesty that Kurosawa was able to evoke.
This would be nothing without a story. In the midst of epic action and overacting, there were many wonderful moments of tragedy and sorrow. Usually, I have trouble telling characters apart in military-themed films, since solders usually look alike, but thanks to great writing, I never had that problem. I also usually get lost in political maneuvering, but I could clearly tell who was doing what to whom. While everyone did great, and the actor who played the ousted lord driven mad was excellent, it was the actress who played Lady Kaede who stole the show. I love love loved this character, as she manipulated everyone with deadly precision to fulfill her revenge.
By today's standards, some of the blood special effects looked dated, but to dislike a film because of that is folly.
I cherish this masterpiece for great storytelling of sorrow and sins, and astounding epic action without any computer graphics.
What I would change
Nothing.
Rocky 4
Viewed in
2008
Premise
After Drago kills Apollo, Rocky seeks revenge in the ring.
Who should watch
Rocky fans.
Thoughts
It was alright. Dolph Lundgren was quite formidable with his flattop. I just want to go around and mutter 'I must break you'.
Stallone was doing his best to carve up some decent writing, especially the dialogue between Rocky and Apollo at the beginning. The whole entrance for Apollo with James Brown was quite cool.
However, at times it felt like an American propaganda, as they showed Drago and Rocky as technology versus grit, Communism versus freedom, Brigitte Nielsen versus Talia Shire. There was also the theme of steroids versus hard work (20 some years later, oops!).
Then there was the 1980's music plus Vince DiCola's 'Transformers' score that just made the whole movie scream '80's!'. And what the hell was up with that robot butler!?!?!
If you've loved Rocky, you might as well watch this, as he fights Drago and owns a robot butler. Seriously, why was there a freaking robot?!?!?!
What I would change
Slowed the pace down at the end of the climactic fight. The twist at the end came too suddenly, so it was hard to believe it would affect the outcome.
2008
Premise
After Drago kills Apollo, Rocky seeks revenge in the ring.
Who should watch
Rocky fans.
Thoughts
It was alright. Dolph Lundgren was quite formidable with his flattop. I just want to go around and mutter 'I must break you'.
Stallone was doing his best to carve up some decent writing, especially the dialogue between Rocky and Apollo at the beginning. The whole entrance for Apollo with James Brown was quite cool.
However, at times it felt like an American propaganda, as they showed Drago and Rocky as technology versus grit, Communism versus freedom, Brigitte Nielsen versus Talia Shire. There was also the theme of steroids versus hard work (20 some years later, oops!).
Then there was the 1980's music plus Vince DiCola's 'Transformers' score that just made the whole movie scream '80's!'. And what the hell was up with that robot butler!?!?!
If you've loved Rocky, you might as well watch this, as he fights Drago and owns a robot butler. Seriously, why was there a freaking robot?!?!?!
What I would change
Slowed the pace down at the end of the climactic fight. The twist at the end came too suddenly, so it was hard to believe it would affect the outcome.
Teen Wolf
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Michael J. Fox plays a high school dork who discovers that he's a werewolf.
Who should watch
Fans of Michael J. Fox, or Bill Simmons readers.
Thoughts
Darn you Bill Simmons for making me watch this silly movie! At least it was an entertainingly bad movie.
The main reward is that I finally know what Simmons was talking about every time he made a 'Teen Wolf' reference in his writings. And who this Stiles character was, and why Styles G. White changed his name to that.
Some ridiculous stuff: the werewolf dance was a blatant rip-off of 'Thriller', the bowling scene looked like the Geico cavemen commercial, the 'with great power comes great responsibility' speech, and the absolutely visible caked-up makeup in Fox's closeups. All made me laugh or invoked a WTF moment from me.
What took the cake was the fact that somehow being a werewolf instantly made you a world-class basketball player. I would have loved to be in the writers' meeting for that one.
Was the wolf thing a metaphor for puberty and hormones? Or do I need to be on something before I can correctly tackle this philosophical question?
I watched this because I had reached the Kobe Bryant chapter in Simmons' 'Book of Basketball'. The comparison was pretty good. Though nothing will top his outrageous yet logical comparison of Bill Walton with Tupac.
Nevertheless, it was an excellent example of those 1980's movies that were so bad that they are good to watch. It just might help to be drinking beforehand.
What I would change
Not a single thing.
2010
Premise
Michael J. Fox plays a high school dork who discovers that he's a werewolf.
Who should watch
Fans of Michael J. Fox, or Bill Simmons readers.
Thoughts
Darn you Bill Simmons for making me watch this silly movie! At least it was an entertainingly bad movie.
The main reward is that I finally know what Simmons was talking about every time he made a 'Teen Wolf' reference in his writings. And who this Stiles character was, and why Styles G. White changed his name to that.
Some ridiculous stuff: the werewolf dance was a blatant rip-off of 'Thriller', the bowling scene looked like the Geico cavemen commercial, the 'with great power comes great responsibility' speech, and the absolutely visible caked-up makeup in Fox's closeups. All made me laugh or invoked a WTF moment from me.
What took the cake was the fact that somehow being a werewolf instantly made you a world-class basketball player. I would have loved to be in the writers' meeting for that one.
Was the wolf thing a metaphor for puberty and hormones? Or do I need to be on something before I can correctly tackle this philosophical question?
I watched this because I had reached the Kobe Bryant chapter in Simmons' 'Book of Basketball'. The comparison was pretty good. Though nothing will top his outrageous yet logical comparison of Bill Walton with Tupac.
Nevertheless, it was an excellent example of those 1980's movies that were so bad that they are good to watch. It just might help to be drinking beforehand.
What I would change
Not a single thing.
View to a Kill
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Roger Moore stars as 007 as he tries to stop Christopher Walken from destroying Silicon Valley.
Liked
Some of the stunts, casting of Walken.
Disliked
Misuse of Walken.
Thoughts
One of the more boring Bonds.
It had a cool skiing opening (the Bond films seem to consistently make creative ski chases). I wonder if it got credit for introducing snowboarding to mass audiences? There was also some entertaining, creative stunts involving fire trucks and blimps over the Golden Gate Bridge of San Fransisco.
On paper, casting Christopher Walken as a sociopath villain was perfect. Even making his sidekick a crazy-looking athletic black lady was cool. Too bad that the execution sucked.
Rarely did he show any hint of danger or instability one would expect from such a character or from Walken. There was nothing memorable about this villain in performance or gimmicks. Since the ambitions of Walken's character was rather small compared to other villains, the movie was forced to meander into random settings and complications before we finally know his motives. Lastly, the plot use earthquakes to destroy Silicon Valley was simply too silly to believe.
The stunts were reliably entertaining, but lack of a good villain, a decent storyline, and cheeky humor made this entry sadly boring.
What I would change
Gave Walken more material to ham it up.
2010
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Roger Moore stars as 007 as he tries to stop Christopher Walken from destroying Silicon Valley.
Liked
Some of the stunts, casting of Walken.
Disliked
Misuse of Walken.
Thoughts
One of the more boring Bonds.
It had a cool skiing opening (the Bond films seem to consistently make creative ski chases). I wonder if it got credit for introducing snowboarding to mass audiences? There was also some entertaining, creative stunts involving fire trucks and blimps over the Golden Gate Bridge of San Fransisco.
On paper, casting Christopher Walken as a sociopath villain was perfect. Even making his sidekick a crazy-looking athletic black lady was cool. Too bad that the execution sucked.
Rarely did he show any hint of danger or instability one would expect from such a character or from Walken. There was nothing memorable about this villain in performance or gimmicks. Since the ambitions of Walken's character was rather small compared to other villains, the movie was forced to meander into random settings and complications before we finally know his motives. Lastly, the plot use earthquakes to destroy Silicon Valley was simply too silly to believe.
The stunts were reliably entertaining, but lack of a good villain, a decent storyline, and cheeky humor made this entry sadly boring.
What I would change
Gave Walken more material to ham it up.
Vision Quest
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Matthew Modine stars as a American high schooler training to beat the state wrestling champion, when a drifter starts living in his house. Based on a novel.
Liked
The serious take on American teens in 1980's.
Hated
The music.
Thoughts
Well, that was interesting.
I really liked how the film created multidimensional characters through writing and acting. Modine channeled an awkward but surprisingly insightful teenager, trying to find his place in the world. It felt like a realistic portrayal of American teens in coming of age. Instead of cardboard cutouts of bullies and parents who don't understand, Modine's character was surrounded by caring adults and classmates who talk and reason with him about things he doesn't understand.
As for the rest of the cast, they were solid, including Linda Fiorentino in her big break as the female lead. I was amused that Modine's arch-rival looked like Psycho T Hansbrough.
Like most sports flicks, there were some cool movie speeches about life, and they came organically from the characters. Also, I appreciated that how easy the film makers got me to understand how the matches were played and scored.
There were definitely some amusing 1980's aspects about it, such as clothes, Madonna's cameo, and the music choice. Actually, the music was the worst part about the film, because for some reason the film makers thought it would be a good idea to play Madonna's "Crazy for You" and Journey's "Only the Young" enough times to drive me close to insanity.
Expecting a cliched sports/coming-of-age flick, I was pleasantly surprised by the complex, interesting characters who made me care for them.
What I would change
The music, of course!
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Matthew Modine stars as a American high schooler training to beat the state wrestling champion, when a drifter starts living in his house. Based on a novel.
Liked
The serious take on American teens in 1980's.
Hated
The music.
Thoughts
Well, that was interesting.
I really liked how the film created multidimensional characters through writing and acting. Modine channeled an awkward but surprisingly insightful teenager, trying to find his place in the world. It felt like a realistic portrayal of American teens in coming of age. Instead of cardboard cutouts of bullies and parents who don't understand, Modine's character was surrounded by caring adults and classmates who talk and reason with him about things he doesn't understand.
As for the rest of the cast, they were solid, including Linda Fiorentino in her big break as the female lead. I was amused that Modine's arch-rival looked like Psycho T Hansbrough.
Like most sports flicks, there were some cool movie speeches about life, and they came organically from the characters. Also, I appreciated that how easy the film makers got me to understand how the matches were played and scored.
There were definitely some amusing 1980's aspects about it, such as clothes, Madonna's cameo, and the music choice. Actually, the music was the worst part about the film, because for some reason the film makers thought it would be a good idea to play Madonna's "Crazy for You" and Journey's "Only the Young" enough times to drive me close to insanity.
Expecting a cliched sports/coming-of-age flick, I was pleasantly surprised by the complex, interesting characters who made me care for them.
What I would change
The music, of course!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)