1980s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

[Lowry_Sam]

Somehow Track 29 completely escaped me. The trailer makes it look like a mess of a movie, but at the same time compelling watching, a trainwreck I'll put on my "to watch" list, but don't anticipate enjoying.

Gary Oldman will probably pop up twice (both times "playing gay") in my 80s list (Prick Up Your Ears, We Think The World Of You) and Sandra Bernhardt once (King Of Comedy... though the stage production was 1988, Without You I'm Nothing was released in 1990, so that'll have to wait for the 90s list), but none of Roeg's 80s output will make it.

[Feego]

Never Cry Wolf (1983, Carroll Ballard)
I remember this airing on the Disney Channel when I was a kid, but I never watched it until now. This was far more sophisticated than I anticipated, bearing pretty much no resemblance to a traditional Disney flick. What starts out as a typical “fish out of water” story, with Charles Martin Smith as real-life biologist Farley Mowat sent to the Arctic to determine if wolves are to blame for the gradual disappearance of the caribou, quickly becomes something more meditative, even spiritual as Mowat in his total isolation develops a deep affinity for the wolves he is studying. Rather than anthropomorphizing the wolves, as is often the case in Disney animal fare, director Carroll Ballard allows Mowat to steadily shed his connections to “civilization” and adapt to a more natural and instinctive way of living by adopting the wolves’ modes of survival, culminating in a stunning sequence in which he runs nude with the wolves as they hunt caribou. Smith is the only human actor on screen for much of the film’s length, and Ballard utilizes animal-documentary techniques and a haunting synth score by Mark Isham to accentuate Mowat’s cold isolation and growing acceptance of the wild beauty he encounters. If you’ve never seen this one, don’t let the Disney label fool you. This is much closer to Werner Herzog than anything that ever came out of the Mouse House.

DreamChild (1985, Gavin Millar)
Dennis Potter crafts a mostly fictional story around the historical footnote of Alice Hargreaves, who as a child inspired Lewis Carroll to write Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, traveling to New York in 1932 at the age of 80 to celebrate Carroll’s centenary at Columbia University. During her trip, she is haunted by memories of her childhood relationship with Carroll, which seems vaguely pedophilic, while guarding herself from the press who hope to capitalize on the existence of a fairy tale heroine. DreamChild is a Potter confection through and through, alternating between an often bleak reality and equally bleak but lovely fantasy sequences involving grotesque depictions of the Wonderland characters courtesy of the Jim Henson Creature Shop. The writer’s predilection for 1930s music and atmosphere also comes into play, providing a stark contrast to the elder Alice’s Victorian sensibilities. Coral Browne is wonderful in the lead role, and Ian Holm and Amelia Shankley bring great depth to Carroll and the child Alice in a series of flashbacks (if they had ever made a proper Alice adaptation with Shankley in the lead and this film’s Jim Henson creations, it would have been magical).

Alice (1988, Jan Svankmajer)
Speaking of Alice, no 80s list would be complete without Jan Svankmajer’s take on the story. Wistful-looking Kristýna Kohoutová plays the live Alice who plunges into Svankmajer’s stop-motion Wonderland of re-animated carcasses and crumbling bric-a-brac. Removing the dream element, this film makes clear that Alice is actively concocting the story herself, which makes her nightmarish encounters that much more disturbing. Chomping animal skulls, marmalade jars filled with tacks, and a taxidermic white rabbit who is quick with the scissors pose constant threats to the young child (for once, we have an actress young enough to play Carroll’s heroine) and reveal her morbid fascination with death. One thing that always sets Svankmajer’s work apart is his ability to connect with our sense of touch as much as sight and sound, and here he features a warped collection of tactile images, from shards of broken glass to the wet, bumpy tongue of a ravenous frog. As Svankmajer’s first feature-length work, Alice is not as cohesive as his later features (though admittedly this goes with the Carroll territory), but if it isn’t quite as brilliant as the best of Svankmajer’s shorts this decade, it’s still one of the best evocations of childhood melancholy I’ve ever seen on film.

[Yojimbo]

Splash (Ron Howard 1984) I had somehow never seen this and wasn't looking forward to rectifying that (Part of my goal this round is to see more canonical "popular" films that have escaped me thus far), but to my great delight I, uh, loved this...I guess this won't help me with the art house popularity contest I was never going to win, but a mainstream film this enjoyable and fully realized is worth advocating...

A good movie is a good movie, regardless of origins, reception, or reputation. I certainly hope that there is no one here that would give you a hard time for enjoying a 80s Hollywood production or for voting for it on your final list. If so, then their snobbery probably is more indicative of their own insecurities of wanting to be seen as having good taste than out of any sort of actual preference. For what it's worth, I'm sure to include at least one big budget Hollywood production on my list--Barry Levinson's The Natural. I may get some grief for it and it may be an orphan, but I still think that it's worthy.

For baseball movies, I think I'd favour Bull Durham; maybe even 'Field of Dreams'

[Yojimbo]

DreamChild (1985, Gavin Millar)
Dennis Potter crafts a mostly fictional story around the historical footnote of Alice Hargreaves, who as a child inspired Lewis Carroll to write Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, traveling to New York in 1932 at the age of 80 to celebrate Carroll’s centenary at Columbia University. During her trip, she is haunted by memories of her childhood relationship with Carroll, which seems vaguely pedophilic, while guarding herself from the press who hope to capitalize on the existence of a fairy tale heroine. DreamChild is a Potter confection through and through, alternating between an often bleak reality and equally bleak but lovely fantasy sequences involving grotesque depictions of the Wonderland characters courtesy of the Jim Henson Creature Shop. The writer’s predilection for 1930s music and atmosphere also comes into play, providing a stark contrast to the elder Alice’s Victorian sensibilities. Coral Browne is wonderful in the lead role, and Ian Holm and Amelia Shankley bring great depth to Carroll and the child Alice in a series of flashbacks (if they had ever made a proper Alice adaptation with Shankley in the lead and this film’s Jim Henson creations, it would have been magical).

Director Gavin Millar famously inspired Monty Python's Gavin Millarrgggggghh (sp) film critic character.
I'd like to hear back his film reviews again, because at the time I really didn't appreciate film enough and he also came across as very pretentious to me.

It's a magical film which I'll certainly have on my shortlist....

[bamwc2]

For baseball movies, I think I'd favour Bull Durham; maybe even 'Field of Dreams'

I haven't ever seen either. They both seem like perfect candidates for the project, though. Perhaps I'll explain my love for The Natural in a subsequent post, but I'm out of time now.

[bamwc2]

Viewing Log:

Circle of Deceit (Volker Schlöndorff, 1981): Bruno Ganz plays Georg Laschen, a German journalist who leaves his home for war torn Beirut in this dark look at the religious civil war that has consumed Lebanon for half a decade prior to the making of the film. Traveling with his photographer the pair find themselves in a number of hairy situations in the bombed out city, but he is still glad that the assignment offers him a reprieve from home. Like the handful of other films that I've seen by Schlöndorff, I would say that this is very good, but never quite achieves masterpiece status. It's a fine film dealing with the loss of sanity in war, but it won't be making my list.

Deliria (Michele Soavi, 1986): All of the talk of slasher films put me in the mood for one, so I decided to go with this US set giallo about a crazed ex-stage actor who terrorizes a small time troop rehearsing a production about a serial killer. The film wastes little time in racking up the body count and gives the last 30 minutes directly to the last survivor in a rather tense stand off between the her and the killer. There are some interesting compositions and shots here that show of Soavi's visual flare, but the script all too often calls for the characters to be little more than anonymous victims. To be sure some of the characters are better fleshed out than others, but there are quite a few characters that die here whose death loses all impact as we ask "Um, who are you, again?" It's not great giallo, but there are worse ways to spend your night. I'd give it a lukewarm recommendation.

HealtH (Robert Altman, 1980): Well, here's another mess from Altman, but at least it's an enjoyable one, unlike some of the other low cards that he dealt in the 80s. The film centers on the presidential elections of a health food organization in Florida. The rivalry is between the spacey new age charlatan Esther (Lauren Bacall) and the schoolmarmish Isabella (Glenda Jackson). Rounding out the top bill we have Gloria Burbank (Carol Burnett) a HHS undersecretary on a mission of goodwill and Harry Wolff (James Garner), her ex husband and Esther's campaign manager. The madcap humor is very broad here, but enough of the jokes stick to make the film worth the time spent watching it. It's not great Altman, but it is still good enough.

Johanna D'Arc of Mongolia (Ulrike Ottinger, 1989): Ottinger's film is um, well, different to say that least. The film begins with it's first of three hours set aboard a train traveling across Central Asia with an eclectic cast of quirky characters. After the male characters depart, the women find themselves taken captive by a Mongolian army led by a princess. The next two hours prove to be more of an enlightening experience for our European tourists than a frightening one, as their captors prove good natured and eager to show of their local culture. The film itself is too cute by half, and relies on the Western tourist learning from the "simple folks" trope. Despite some absolutely gorgeous imagery of the Mongolian countryside, I recommend skipping it.

Liquid Sky (Slava Tsukerman, 1982): A dinner plate sized UFO houses aliens that have traveled to New York in search of a fix. At first they focus their attention on the heroin sold by Adrien (Paula E. Sheppard) out of her flat. Soon they find that the chemical composition of the human brain during orgasm better suits their tastes and begin extracting these hormones and killing all of the partners of Adrien's androgynous bisexual model lover Margaret (Anne Carlisle, who also co-wrote the script) at the moment that they climax. At first the bodies get left behind with a glass syringe jetting from their skulls, but as the body count begins to pile up over the course of the night, the corpses simply begin to dematerialize. There's a lot going on here, and not all of it works well, but the empowerment that Margaret experiences when she learns of her new found ability is open for all sort of interesting feminist analysis. Carlisle also delivers a fairly powerful speech toward the end of the film as she's on the brink of sanity about her dreams in coming to New York, and the broken promises and abuse that she's experienced instead that does a great job of tying together some of the film's themes and adding some much needed dramatic weight to the film's goofiness. It's a very silly plot, but not a bad film at all.

[Tommaso]

Johanna D'Arc of Mongolia (Ulrike Ottinger, 1989): Ottinger's film is um, well, different to say that least. The film begins with it's first of three hours set aboard a train traveling across Central Asia with an eclectic cast of quirky characters. After the male characters depart, the women find themselves taken captive by a Mongolian army led by a princess. The next two hours prove to be more of an enlightening experience for our European tourists than a frightening one, as their captors prove good natured and eager to show of their local culture. The film itself is too cute by half, and relies on the Western tourist learning from the "simple folks" trope. Despite some absolutely gorgeous imagery of the Mongolian countryside, I recommend skipping it.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. The film is basically about the clash of two different sets of mythologies/cultures, the Western one being curiously 'set back in time', with the Transsiberian Railway carriages and its passengers almost a very postmodernist museum of a bygone luxurious culture at around 1900. The Eastern culture with its amazon queen is certainly equally 'constructed', and Ottinger rather plays with notions of 'exoticism' or 'orientalism' rather than subscribing to them. There's a lot of comedy and 'queer', carnavelesque moments in the film, but still the film manages to reconcile this with a documentary approach. If you want a more in-depth (and much more 'clearly' documentary/ethnographic) look, there's no way around sitting through Ottinger's 8-hour "Taiga" from 1992. But for a start, Johanna is a good introduction to Ottinger, as the film represents both the ultra-stylized world of her earlier films and her later documentary filmmaking and exploration of other cultures. I recommend to watch it at once, even though I generally like her early works better.

And perhaps also this one:

Decoder (Muscha, 1984): This German underground film has a deserved cult status, and in any case is a real treasure trove for anyone interested in the post punk/industrial scene of the early 80s. Based on an original idea by William S. Burroughs (who makes a brief appearance in the film, too, dismantling a tape recorder), Decoder tells the story of how a young man (played by FM Einheit from Einstürzende Neubauten) discovers that a fast food chain - and by extension, the government - uses 'coded' muzak to brainwash people. Stealing and 'decoding' the tape, he gets into contact with some underground group of 'information pirates' and organises a revolt by distributing the decoded tape and playing it everywhere in public places. Riots break out, so the fast food chain sets an agent on FM's heels to get him out of the way...

A curious mixture of media critique, new wave lifestyle, and artistic ambitiousness a la Derek Jarman, Decoder can feel terribly amateurish at times, especially in the acting department. For instance, there is the real Christiane F. as FM's girlfriend, and sorry, she can't act at all; FM isn't much better, though. But whatever its shortcomings, this is still a pretty captivating film, with stunning photography (those colours!) by Johanna Heer and a dead cool Bill Rice - the only 'real' actor in the film - as the agent. The film also uses real footage of riots filmed during Reagan's visit to Berlin in 1982, and other 'found footage' ranging from "Metropolis" to porn scenes of the more devious variant. Quite impressive, and fans will also love the soundtrack, mainly composed by Einheit, and Dave Ball and Genesis P. Orridge. Genesis also has a funny little role - basically playing himself, though - as the 'high priest' of the information pirates, delivering such statements as "Information is like a bank: some are rich and some are poor"... Well, it's hard to take all of it completely seriously, but on the other hand the film is pretty visionary in its depiction of mind control by media and grand corporations long before there was the Internet. In any case, it certainly captures a zeitgeist which I rather miss today....

[Yojimbo]

Two movies which I want to re-watch for this poll are 'Choose Me' and 'Trouble In Mind'

With the former, it looked like Alan Rudolph was all set to step out from under the shadow of Robert Altman, but I don't think he's ever topped it; which is no shame in itself.
It's been too long since I watched it - another unsealed DVD purchase of almost five years vintage - although that, only because I was trying to reserve the right occasion for a re-view for a film which holds a special place in my affections, .
Its got wonderful ensemble playing - especially by the three leads - but I think its the synergy of looks and late-night music sounds which especially combine to make it special. I think a valid comparison would be with Wong Kar Wai's equally seductive 'Chung King Express', where mood is everything.

'Trouble In Mind' was inevitably a disappointment, in comparison: it looks great, but for different reasons; gunmetal greys and relentless rain, which should have set the mood for a great modern noir, but even noir needs a half-decent plot to hang its hat on, sometimes.
A bald, menacing, Divine in a man's suit was part of the selling of the movie, but it wasn't enough; nor was the re-teaming of two of the stars of 'Choose Me'.
Maybe a re-watch will unearth previously-hidden depths

[knives]

Adventures in Babysitting
Odd seeing Debra Hill credited here. Anyways this film exists in this strange, strange world that a lot of films seem to from the era that I have to assume is a pure fantasy, but at the same time I wouldn't put it pass rich white people to actually view the world in these terms. Even just the way that 'the city' is considered as and is portrayed as is a really amusing look into that culture's mindset. I suppose then the film could either be looked at as a reactionary bourgeoisie fantasy filled with freaks and thieves or a carefully studied poke at those same anxieties. My first instinct is to the later, but maybe that's just because of where I stand. There are times when the film does fit a little too cheekily into those fears like in the Brenda scenes and the overall style doesn't seem self aware enough to subvert all of them. I guess between Hill and Gremlins I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt.

The Outsider
This one is amusing just for how little of the latter Tarr there is here. There's a couple of tracking shots and the seeming insanity of the characters feels like a set up for the sort of simmering distance they'd take on later, but the style, the dialogue, the colour is all so unrecognizable. Oddly this more traditional, relatively, style makes the film feel more rambling and placed with unnecessary actions like if Arnold Schoenberg had filled his songs with more notes rather than leaving the available ones to simmer.

Conan the Barbarian
I can now appreciate Samurai Jack on a deeper level so I at least got that out of the film. Anyway I'm sure as with all things Milius the first reaction is to talk about the politics, but they're so silly as to almost be cute and mostly just seem to reduce these really homoerotic situations into more straightforward drama which I guess could be served as a lesson for Zach Snyder. Still it is all very silly. The devastating thing though is that for as goofy and fantastical as the politics are the film is so well made and the fantasy so convincing that the film wraps around to working as an old school epic romance with the right sort of meaty performance from Schwarzenegger.

Turner & Hooch
What a weird movie. I mean everything else aside Reginald VelJohnson as the younger cop to Tom Hanks of all people just seems wrong. That aside the movie basically does everything to make itself not kid friendly which seems like an act of self sabotage given the Tom Hanks with dog premise. The violence/ crime of the film mood wise is pretty dark and straightforward and of course the dog is such a perfect mixture of ugly and terrifying I can't imagine anything but kids screaming back in the day especially with its gentiles taking up as much screentime as its slobber. Yet despite all of this ridiculousness I can't help but like the movie and I suspect that has entirely to do with Hanks. Generally I'm ambivalent toward him, but his need to be pleasing really helps since I suspect that if someone who better fit the character as written played him the whole thing would fall apart even further. It's the good side of that Bonfire of the Vanities coin. I can't believe I actually wound up liking this. That has to be some sign of early onset dementia.

The Prefab People
This is a lot more familiar, but still suggestive of what a great Tarr without Krasznahorkai would have been like. It is a lot more free on its toes with a great sense of sloppiness though I suspect that's all manufactured. The lack of dialogue is also played more to the documentary toying with the sound mix and diegesis to all for naturalism (of all things) to be examined through sheer physicality. It's a really great and fascinating window even as I prefer the Tarr we have now.

[zedz]

Johanna D'Arc of Mongolia (Ulrike Ottinger, 1989): Ottinger's film is um, well, different to say that least. The film begins with it's first of three hours set aboard a train traveling across Central Asia with an eclectic cast of quirky characters. After the male characters depart, the women find themselves taken captive by a Mongolian army led by a princess. The next two hours prove to be more of an enlightening experience for our European tourists than a frightening one, as their captors prove good natured and eager to show of their local culture. The film itself is too cute by half, and relies on the Western tourist learning from the "simple folks" trope. Despite some absolutely gorgeous imagery of the Mongolian countryside, I recommend skipping it.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. The film is basically about the clash of two different sets of mythologies/cultures, the Western one being curiously 'set back in time', with the Transsiberian Railway carriages and its passengers almost a very postmodernist museum of a bygone luxurious culture at around 1900. The Eastern culture with its amazon queen is certainly equally 'constructed', and Ottinger rather plays with notions of 'exoticism' or 'orientalism' rather than subscribing to them. There's a lot of comedy and 'queer', carnavelesque moments in the film, but still the film manages to reconcile this with a documentary approach. If you want a more in-depth (and much more 'clearly' documentary/ethnographic) look, there's no way around sitting through Ottinger's 8-hour "Taiga" from 1992. But for a start, Johanna is a good introduction to Ottinger, as the film represents both the ultra-stylized world of her earlier films and her later documentary filmmaking and exploration of other cultures. I recommend to watch it at once, even though I generally like her early works better.

Joan of Arc isn't my favourite Ottinger, but I love the massive contrast between the cluttered, claustrophobic artificiality of the first section (which almost verges on self-parody) with the widescreen, open-air ethnography (also pretty artificial, but in a completely different mode) of the second. Watching it,it has the effect of stepping into a completely different film And I think the appropriate trope to apply to the second part is the one of cross-cultural female learning (women learning from one another despite class / cultural differences), which is a key one for feminist filmmaking in the 70s and 80s. I also see the film as Ottinger exploring central ideas of her own art (e.g. certain female archetypes, gender roles, drag) through a clash-of-cultures lens, and seeing if she can apply her artistic personality to material which is radically culturally alien, which is a project that is totally in line with the full-on performative aspect of her aesthetic. It's another form of drag.

Any charges of cultural tourism need to take Taiga into account, as it's really part of the same overarching project and represents a further (and even longer) step towards 'reality' from the second (long) part of the feature. Taiga is nothing like Joan of Arc. It's pretty much eight hours of unmediated ethnography - i.e. you spend twenty minutes inside a yurt watching somebody make salted milk tea (yak's milk is pink, by the way) - and is much closer to a Wang Bing film than any of Ottinger's features that I've seen.

[flyonthewall2983]

For baseball movies, I think I'd favour Bull Durham; maybe even 'Field of Dreams'

I haven't ever seen either. They both seem like perfect candidates for the project, though. Perhaps I'll explain my love for The Natural in a subsequent post, but I'm out of time now.

For me? The Natural, hands down. An impressive cast, an economical script, GORGEOUS lighting, iconic music, and the sole inspiration for many golden-era Simpsons jokes.

[domino harvey]

Bull Durham (Ron Shelton 1988) A mixed bag for me here. The central story, that of Susan Sarandon groupie-ing her way through each baseball season's most promising player, came off stale and underutilized, and I could never really buy into her underwritten conceit. That said, I enjoyed the film when it let itself focus on the Kevin Costner-Tim Robbins mentorship, and while I didn't find the film particularly funny, there is a wry charm to their interactions. I was a little surprised at how crude Shelton's script was at times, and some of that vulgarity took away from the genial sweetness Shelton managed to sporadically compound over the course of the film. So, if we're debating best Costner baseball movies of the decade, Field of Dreams allllll the way.

Jagged Edge (Richard Marquand 1985) I am reminded of the rather awful Joseph Cotten "mystery" Blueprint for Murder, where the solution to the whodunnit is so obvious and blatant that for most of the film, the audience is teetering towards believing it must be a work of misdirection, because no film could be that stupid. And then, you know... Same here, unfortunately. Robert Loggia has five minutes screentime and no interesting lines, story- or dialog-wise, or other points of interest that would point to his receiving a Best Supporting Actor nom, but that happened too, and why that happened is the real whodunnit here.

Johnny Handsome (Walter Hill 1989) I think I am reaching my breaking point on Walter Hill. Hill's tiresome affection for ugliness and brash boldness does nothing for me, and even here, one of his better works, the level to which he pitches his actors and their dialog within the ludicrous narrative is just grating in the extreme-- I am struggling to think of the last perf I hated as much as Ellen Barkin's in this movie, and a lot of the blame goes to the director who let her get away with it. But then again, everyone is pushed to noxious levels here, except for the curiously underplayed Mickey Rourke, done up in Mask makeup for a third of the movie. This is a noir-update of sorts that is convinced if everyone just harps and acts weird long enough (Looking at you, against-type-slumming Elizabeth McGovern), no one will stop to think about how thin the whole construct is. Well, I'm sure I'm sorry.

Romancing the Stone (Robert Zemeckis 1984) / the Jewel of the Nile (Lewis Teague 1985) Well, here's some more movies I thought I'd seen but upon "re"watching realized otherwise. I'm not sure they would have done much more for me at a young age, though-- kids love mousy romance novelists forced into foreign adventures, I know, but… On a basic level I didn't think either of these were very good, with Caffeine Free Diet Indiana Jones adventures occurring between underwhelming patter between our leads (who are more fun in the somewhat overrated but still far superior pairing [tripling?] of the War of the Roses). I definitely would not have bothered to watch the sequel had it not been packaged together with the first film, but if I had to choose, I do think the sell-out second film is slightly better, if only for having the decency to feature one clever action scene involving a non-aerial fighter plane. I'm not all that sure what anyone saw in the first film to merit the second, though!

[Yojimbo]

Johnny Handsome (Walter Hill 1989) I think I am reaching my breaking point on Walter Hill. Hill's tiresome affection for ugliness and brash boldness does nothing for me, and even here, one of his better works, the level to which he pitches his actors and their dialog within the ludicrous narrative is just grating in the extreme-- I am struggling to think of the last perf I hated as much as Ellen Barkin's in this movie, and a lot of the blame goes to the director who let her get away with it. But then again, everyone is pushed to noxious levels here, except for the curiously underplayed Mickey Rourke, done up in Mask makeup for a third of the movie. This is a noir-update of sorts that is convinced if everyone just harps and acts weird long enough (Looking at you, against-type-slumming Elizabeth McGovern), no one will stop to think about how thin the whole construct is. Well, I'm sure I'm sorry.

Ariane'n'Ellen: The Waldorf and Statler of 80's actresses?
(or maybe Rene and Renata?)

I didn't even bother watching this; and I used to be a Walter Hill fan

[Red Screamer]

Secret Honor (Robert Altman, 1984)
This film is absolutely hypnotic. Granted that's largely due to PBH's explosive performance, but there's also something in the rhythm of Altman's direction and the surprise of the seemingly random eerie images. Nixon is telling a story, his story. But to who? The intended audience is a fictional "judge", to whom he is defending himself. He ends up telling it to portraits on his wall of his mother or various politicians and ex-presidents. But the actual audience listening to his self-mythologizing is us and, of course, himself. We see Richard Nixon as pathetic, hilarious, heroic, tragic, and ultimately (and perhaps most radically) human. The Shakespeare references are well deserved. Philip Baker Hall has one of the best portrayals of the decade in a film that will certainly make my list and, hopefully, a few others.

Tootsie (Sydney Pollack,1982)
To my disappointment, domino is completely right on this one. Cardboard cutouts for characters, ridiculous sexual politics, condescension through a self-important "message", homophobic humor and an insufferable jerk as a protagonist who can really truly teach women how to be women and stand up to mean men like himself.
When did we decide this was good and why didn't anyone reasonable have a say?

[colinr0380]

Adventures in Babysitting
Odd seeing Debra Hill credited here. Anyways this film exists in this strange, strange world that a lot of films seem to from the era that I have to assume is a pure fantasy, but at the same time I wouldn't put it pass rich white people to actually view the world in these terms. Even just the way that 'the city' is considered as and is portrayed as is a really amusing look into that culture's mindset. I suppose then the film could either be looked at as a reactionary bourgeoisie fantasy filled with freaks and thieves or a carefully studied poke at those same anxieties. My first instinct is to the later, but maybe that's just because of where I stand. There are times when the film does fit a little too cheekily into those fears like in the Brenda scenes and the overall style doesn't seem self aware enough to subvert all of them. I guess between Hill and Gremlins I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt.

I remember this being one of the 'forbidden pleasures' of my childhood, showing kids of my age but carrying a restrictive 15 rating that made it seem much more grown up that it will probably turn out to have been! I am curious to revisit it and see how it compares against De Palma's adaptation of Bonfire of the Vanities though!

Conan the Barbarian
I can now appreciate Samurai Jack on a deeper level so I at least got that out of the film. Anyway I'm sure as with all things Milius the first reaction is to talk about the politics, but they're so silly as to almost be cute and mostly just seem to reduce these really homoerotic situations into more straightforward drama which I guess could be served as a lesson for Zach Snyder. Still it is all very silly. The devastating thing though is that for as goofy and fantastical as the politics are the film is so well made and the fantasy so convincing that the film wraps around to working as an old school epic romance with the right sort of meaty performance from Schwarzenegger.

I've often thought that this was the perfect combination of actor and director in a brutal, everything must be fought for world and an early example of trying to take such a wild fantasy world and treat it with a kind of gritty "adult" realism (there's that word again - so many of the films from the 80s for me have that strange air of having a grown up, forbidden air about them, and I wonder if that's more just the age I was when I got to see them lending them that appeal more than the films themselves) compared to earlier and more lighthearted stuff like Hercules In New York! I certainly love the well thought out and self contained arc that Conan goes through in that first film, from slave to brooding conqueror whose rule will probably be marked by his upbringing. From that recent documentary on John Milius there were apparently plans afoot to create a series of films to follow his character (unfortunately a few decades before serialised fantasy series became popular! Fantasy films were huge in the 80s - Krull, Dragonslayer, Excalibur, The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, etc - but they all seemed to be one-offs rather than spawning further films set in the same universe), but in the end we only got the rather lacklustre Conan The Destroyer, which has its moments but lacks that coherent statement and philosophy that the first film had, instead piling on more or less interesting action moments.

There's also that Red Sonja film, which is based on another Robert E. Howard character, but the least said about that the better!

Turner & Hooch
What a weird movie. I mean everything else aside Reginald VelJohnson as the younger cop to Tom Hanks of all people just seems wrong. That aside the movie basically does everything to make itself not kid friendly which seems like an act of self sabotage given the Tom Hanks with dog premise. The violence/ crime of the film mood wise is pretty dark and straightforward and of course the dog is such a perfect mixture of ugly and terrifying I can't imagine anything but kids screaming back in the day especially with its gentiles taking up as much screentime as its slobber. Yet despite all of this ridiculousness I can't help but like the movie and I suspect that has entirely to do with Hanks. Generally I'm ambivalent toward him, but his need to be pleasing really helps since I suspect that if someone who better fit the character as written played him the whole thing would fall apart even further. It's the good side of that Bonfire of the Vanities coin. I can't believe I actually wound up liking this. That has to be some sign of early onset dementia.

Ah, close to the end of Hanks' 'early, funny' period! I still have some affection for Bachelor Party (which like Revenge of the Nerds is one of the few gross out hijinks comedies that I can tolerate!) and there is Dragnet of course, but I haven't rewatched Turner & Hooch in years! If you are still in the mood for cop-dog team ups, can I also recommend the James Belushi-starring K-9! I seem to remember K-9 being a bit grittier, as far as dog-cop buddy movies go(!), and I also amuse myself by remembering back to Belushi's character in Salvador who has a terrible experience at a dog pound early on in that film!

Jagged Edge (Richard Marquand 1985) I am reminded of the rather awful Joseph Cotten "mystery" Blueprint for Murder, where the solution to the whodunnit is so obvious and blatant that for most of the film, the audience is teetering towards believing it must be a work of misdirection, because no film could be that stupid. And then, you know... Same here, unfortunately. Robert Loggia has five minutes screentime and no interesting lines, story- or dialog-wise, or other points of interest that would point to his receiving a Best Supporting Actor nom, but that happened too, and why that happened is the real whodunnit here.

The same trick Eszterhas would pull in Basic Instinct (and Music Box, Sliver, Jade etc), but at least there Verhoeven seemed more in on the joke! Interestingly I seem to remember that Jagged Edge inspired a spate of courtroom thrillers, from the Cher/Liam Neeson-starring Suspect to the surprisingly good adaptation of Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent. Then unfortunately that variety seemed to narrow entirely down to John Grisham adaptations.

[domino harvey]

Head Office (Ken Finkleman 1986) Corporate world nose-thumbing is afoot in this satire that never quite hits its targets with the level of specificity and observation they need. Some of the gags are good-- Judge Reinhold, disgusted by two colleagues discussing their plans for a dying co-worker's accounts, suggests they just kill him rather than wait and the film plays out the silent thought processes through shot reverse shot for nearly a minute before they dismiss the idea-- but most are too broad and silly to have bite. There's some gifted comic actors cast in this (though most only turn in mostly cameo-length appearances), but only Eddie Albert manages much of an impression as the CEO stooge who opens the film by highlighting to investors both his company's production of nuclear warheads and "Creamier, nuttier peanut butter."

Legal Eagles (Ivan Reitman 1986) If the elements had a union, surely Fire would be properly second-billed under Robert Redford here in this arson-happy courtroom-comedy-adventure-whatever-else. As this was his first post-Ghostbusters gig, Reitman was able to command some big stars and a big budget, but this movie is all over the place in tone and intent, and I couldn't really figure out who the audience was... The plot involving stolen artwork and forgeries wouldn't play for the modern art crowd (especially after the ludicrous performance art piece Daryl Hannah puts on in this movie) and it's hard to imagine mainstream audiences giving a shit either. The film tries hard to pair Redford and Debra Winger, but he seems a better fit during his fling with the airheaded Hannah than with Winger's noble defense attorney. And don't even get me started on the absurd opening argument Redford makes in court stating for the jury how his client is actually guilty and then ending with a proclamation of her innocence that A, makes no sense, B, somehow earns the unspoken respect of Judge Roscoe Lee Browne, and C, is probably something he could get disbarred over. Fun fact: Up until now, the only time I'd ever even heard of this movie was crossword puzzles, where it is a disproportionately popular clue!

the Pope of Greenwich Village (Stuart Rosenberg 1984) Walter Hill could learn a thing or two from this film, which also pitches its actors at unnaturally high (low?) levels of scuzz, but does so with finesse and without alienating the audience. This movie isn't so much about the narrative (literally-- the appearance of the end credits are jarring because the film hadn't even bothered to move towards a recognizable conclusion) but performance, and fans of the less is more school should avoid. But this would make a great double bill with the Falcon and the Snowman for a pairing of all-time great portrayals of losers. Eric Roberts is phenomenal as the fuck-up wannabe who wants nothing more than to merit the swagger he throws around but is nothing but a little kid wanting the reward without the work it takes. I don't know if others have noticed this before or whether it was intentional or not, but I'm pretty sure Moe from the Simpsons was based on Roberts' character here-- at the very least they gave Moe one of Roberts' most famous lines from the film several seasons in! Once I saw it, I couldn't unsee it...

the Shining (Stanley Kubrick 1980) I read the novel in high school and picked up enough bits and pieces over the years from our shared cultural consciousness before finally seeing Kubrick's treatment in whole and, well, what can I say? Kubrick's style rarely works for me, but here he seems evenly matched to his material, with his alien degree of detachment and construction lending the film an eeriness it needs. For someone who exerted a notable degree of control over the process of filming this, I am surprised at how many awkward moments of a character's physicality or bad line readings Kubrick let into the final product. One gets the feeling Kubrick would be happiest if he was just filming the interior of the hotel with no humans at all in the way, so maybe it didn't even register. Nicholson is tetherless in the early passages, but hits the moments of crazed menace with the vigor one expects, and he manages to be genuinely scary during his last act confrontations with Shelley Duvall. I doubt this will make my list, but since it's all but guaranteed a spot in the final Top 10, at least I can understand and appreciate its popularity.

Les sièges de l'Alcazar (Luc Moullet 1989) Amusing look at the state of French Film Criticism in the time of Cahiers du Cinema and Positif from former Cahiers critic Moullet. I enjoyed the in-jokes and copious references to intentionally obscure filmmakers of the era (One of which sent me Google searching, Sam Newfield-- In Moullet's film, one Cahiers critic humorously declares Newfield be the only director that mattered since he directed 207 films, so you've probably seen at least one by sheer chance) and the acknowledgment of the sometimes silly and arbitrary championing of under-appreciated auteurs that went on in the journal scene at the time is much needed and smartly done. Lots of good gags abound, with some of the best being completely unfair to their subjects, as when our hero praises the theatre's decision to run an Italian double bill with Visconti film first, since he brought a date and can make-out with her at leisure since "there's no reason to look at a Visconti!"

[Yojimbo]

the Pope of Greenwich Village (Stuart Rosenberg 1984) Walter Hill could learn a thing or two from this film, which also pitches its actors at unnaturally high (low?) levels of scuzz, but does so with finesse and without alienating the audience. This movie isn't so much about the narrative (literally-- the appearance of the end credits are jarring because the film hadn't even bothered to move towards a recognizable conclusion) but performance, and fans of the less is more school should avoid. But this would make a great double bill with the Falcon and the Snowman for a pairing of all-time great portrayals of losers. Eric Roberts is phenomenal as the fuck-up wannabe who wants nothing more than to merit the swagger he throws around but is nothing but a little kid wanting the reward without the work it takes. I don't know if others have noticed this before or whether it was intentional or not, but I'm pretty sure Moe from the Simpsons was based on Roberts' character here-- at the very least they gave Moe one of Roberts' most famous lines from the film several seasons in! Once I saw it, I couldn't unsee it...

the Shining (Stanley Kubrick 1980) I read the novel in high school and picked up enough bits and pieces over the years from our shared cultural consciousness before finally seeing Kubrick's treatment in whole and, well, what can I say? Kubrick's style rarely works for me, but here he seems evenly matched to his material, with his alien degree of detachment and construction lending the film an eeriness it needs. For someone who exerted a notable degree of control over the process of filming this, I am surprised at how many awkward moments of a character's physicality or bad line readings Kubrick let into the final product. One gets the feeling Kubrick would be happiest if he was just filming the interior of the hotel with no humans at all in the way, so maybe it didn't even register. Nicholson is tetherless in the early passages, but hits the moments of crazed menace with the vigor one expects, and he manages to be genuinely scary during his last act confrontations with Shelley Duvall. I doubt this will make my list, but since it's all but guaranteed a spot in the final Top 10, at least I can understand and appreciate its popularity.

The Shining will probably make my Top 10; and I'm still pissed about having passed on it on its original cinema release because I was turned off by the 'here's Johnny!' trailer scenes.
I'm not usually a fan of 'production-designer' films, but the production-design here is a significant part of its appeal.
I heard that a tv remake was faithful to the novel, but - unsurprisingly - isn't in the Kubrick's league

Good call on the losers double-bill. I presume you'll be getting around to 'Star 80', eventually, which is where I first became acquainted with Eric Roberts. He never fails to create a Robert Shaw 'fingernails-scraping-the-blackboard' impression on me and I'm not really sure is it because of his voice - or is he always playing himself, in a scuzzy, Cary Grant kindof way?

[Yojimbo]

Ah, close to the end of Hanks' 'early, funny' period! I still have some affection for Bachelor Party (which like Revenge of the Nerds is one of the few gross out hijinks comedies that I can tolerate!) and there is Dragnet of course, but I haven't rewatched Turner & Hooch in years!

Me too, Col, but when wondering whatever happened to Tawny Kitaen - who presumably would have coveted Michelle Pfeiffer's 'Catwoman' role - I was shocked to read just how far she had fallen
(about as big a shock as when I first heard about Randy Quaid's travails)

She had seemed so 'normal'; so 'Tom Hanks', back then!

[domino harvey]

Good call on the losers double-bill. I presume you'll be getting around to 'Star 80', eventually, which is where I first became acquainted with Eric Roberts. He never fails to create a Robert Shaw 'fingernails-scraping-the-blackboard' impression on me and I'm not really sure is it because of his voice - or is he always playing himself, in a scuzzy, Cary Grant kindof way?

I already saw Star 80 back when I was writing my thesis and I am in no hurry to rewatch it! I did just order Arrow's Runaway Train and I think he's in 25% of all movies that aired on HBO/Showtime in the 90s, so there's no shortage of Eric Roberts in my future

[swo17]

Runaway Train, in which Eric Roberts and Jon Voight play two people who have never seen Surviving Edged Weapons.

[Yojimbo]

Good call on the losers double-bill. I presume you'll be getting around to 'Star 80', eventually, which is where I first became acquainted with Eric Roberts. He never fails to create a Robert Shaw 'fingernails-scraping-the-blackboard' impression on me and I'm not really sure is it because of his voice - or is he always playing himself, in a scuzzy, Cary Grant kindof way?

I already saw Star 80 back when I was writing my thesis and I am in no hurry to rewatch it! I did just order Arrow's Runaway Train and I think he's in 25% of all movies that aired on HBO/Showtime in the 90s, so there's no shortage of Eric Roberts in my future

Now Runaway Train I did see on its original cinema release; I think it might have secured an Oscar nomination or two - possibly from its Kurosawa story connection.
One thing I can say in its favour is that you really did 'feel' the cold - as well as the tension - as you were watching it.

[domino harvey]

Voight and Roberts both got Best Actor / Best Supporting Actor nods, but none for screenplay (the third nom was for editing). Is this the right time to admit I've seen Eric Roberts commit acts of stunt-double kung fu on Maxim Magazine stand-ins?

[Yojimbo]

Voight and Roberts both got Best Actor / Best Supporting Actor nods, but none for screenplay (the third nom was for editing). Is this the right time to admit I've seen Eric Roberts commit acts of stunt-double kung fu on Maxim Magazine stand-ins?

Sure. I think Eric Roberts is the champion of the actor 'guilty pleasures' - if there is such a thing.

I'd thought Voight got a nom.; I'm pretty sure Eric did, also, for Star 80

[Shrew]

If Eric Roberts' voice is the problem for you, just wait until the 2010s, when A Talking Cat!?! will be required viewing.



Eric Roberts is the cat.


The one that talks.

[Yojimbo]

If Eric Roberts' voice is the problem for you, just wait until the 2010s, when A Talking Cat!?! will be required viewing.



Eric Roberts is the cat.


The one that talks.

He'd make for one cool cat
And maybe Tawny Kitaen could co-star in the sequel