Pages

Powered by Blogger.
Showing posts with label 1983. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1983. Show all posts

034. Spasms

Monday, January 28, 2013

034. (27 Jan) Spasms (1983, William Fruet) 40



Spasms finds its way near the film's end with an awesome snake attack against three girls, marking the start of its real rampage. Unfortunately, this still has way too many plots going. It's a dumb creature feature mainly because we never see the killer snake in any convincing capacity until the finale, stuck with a terrible snake's eye view whenever it's on the prowl before then. Oliver Reed is having a good time here, at least, as a man with a telepathic link to the snake. An overly serious Peter Fonda sucks the fun out of his scenes, but this really isn't focused enough to give anyone much screentime. Despite its flaws, Spasms is never less than weirdly watchable.

032. Bad Boys

Saturday, January 26, 2013

032. (25 Jan) Bad Boys (1983, Rick Rosenthal) 60



A powerful film about the dehumanizing nature of prison, this distinguishes itself with its setting in a juvenile facility. Prison hardening someone and making them far more dangerous than they'd be on the street is hardly a new narrative, but Sean Penn lends Bad Boys credibility. A complicated revenge plot keep and colorful, if clichéd characters also keep this intriguing. Also, I don't know that I've ever seen so much terrible bruising makeup in a single film before.

028. Private School

Thursday, January 24, 2013

028. (23 Jan) Private School (1983, Noel Black) 24



The soundtrack here is ten times more fun than anything ever taking place on screen, with the schmaltzy "Just One Touch" as the highlight. Mostly an extended excuse to show T&A, this horny comedy has the male gaze running amok. The attempt to balance sex gags with a phony romance between Phoebe Cates and Matthew Modine doesn't work at all. The pair do have a delightful scene where they awkwardly attempt to buy condoms from Martin Mull though.

027. Class

027. (23 Jan) Class (1983, Lewis John Carlino) 47



As odd an '80s sexy comedy as it is inappropriate. Jacqueline Bisset is technically a child rapist here, but the film is played as a male fantasy for so long that the fact is disregarded completely. There are some amusing scenarios, like a hazing bit at the film's start, but the melodrama is decidedly more entertaining. The twist involving Rob Lowe and Bisset's connection is priceless, giving the film a third act complication it sorely needs. Too bad the film doesn't bother to resolve anything.

025. White Lightning

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

025. (22 Jan) White Lightning (1973, Joseph Sargent) 38



Burt Reynolds's star power is on full display in White Lightning, but this backwoods crime drama doesn't offer much otherwise. The car chases and stunts are as good a you'd expect. The story is just severely undercooked, wasting talents like Reynolds, Ned Beatty and Diane Ladd in favor of meaningless action sequence after action sequence.

023. Le Bal

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

023. (22 Jan) Le Bal (1983, Ettore Scola) 27



The irony that the wordless Le Bal was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar is perhaps what most distinguishes it. It's far too gimmicky for its own good, taking place in a ballroom as the time period changes occasionally and characters silently meet and interact. It has a small handful of charming moments, but it's a theater piece through and through, not really cinema. For the most part, it's unamusing, exhausting and forgettable.

320. Blue Thunder

Monday, December 24, 2012

320. (23 Dec) Blue Thunder (1983, John Badham) 29



The novelty behind the aerial action here wears thin quickly and has frankly been outdone by films like Top Gun. It's a well-edited action movie, with Badham getting every bit as much excitement out of a car chase on the ground as he does with helicopters in the air. Unfortunately, it's almost entirely action, so it's hard to invest in a cast of characters whose development is never more than paper thin. No one is in bad form, per se, but I've never seen Roy Scheider or Malcolm McDowell make a slighter impression. The one-liners are truly terrible.

257. Psycho II

Friday, November 2, 2012

257. (31 Oct) Psycho II (1983, Richard Franklin) 48



Such an absurd amount of plot unfolds here, it becomes comical that the storytelling gets in the way of cheap scares. Practically every character turns out to believably be a red herring, but it's at the expense of atmosphere. Most sequels feel unnecessary, but Psycho II retains little, if anything about what makes the original a classic. Anthony Perkins and Meg Tilly both seem to be competing for who can be the weaker link in an already terrible ensemble. In terms of pace and technical proficiency, there's little to complain about. But this falls completely under the original's immensely cast shadow.

The Films of 1983: Blue Thunder

Tuesday, October 16, 2012



John Badham had a banner year in 1983 as the director of two blockbuster techno-thrillers: War Games and Blue Thunder. 

Both films involve the bugaboo of advanced computer technology, which was, generally speaking, the broad theme of many genre films in 1983.  Films from Superman III and Never Say Never Again to the anthology Nightmares circled around the frightening notion that our technology might run amok, or at the very least fall into the wrong hands. 

Blue Thunder is among the most entertaining of this 1983 techno-bunch, and it pushes the pedal hard on action and spectacular fireworks. Although some of the character dialogue is undeniably clunky, the movie nonetheless accurately forecasts the rise of the modern surveillance state, one fact that makes the film relevant in 2012.  Today, however, the helicopter prototype’s spying capability looks positively quaint.

Certainly, Blue Thunder owes some creative debt to 1982’s Firefox, another film concerning a deadly hi-tech aircraft and a protagonist battling PTSD following the Vietnam War.  Yet the action here is so rousing that it is easy to gloss over the film’s occasionally contrived plot mechanisms or its transparent debt to other cinematic thrillers.

In fact, Blue Thunder was so well-received by audiences of the day that it spawned a TV spin-off (also titled Blue Thunder), a terrific TV knock-off (Airwolf), and a model kit of the titular vehicle, which I owned, built…and cherished.  Wish I still had it…

Although this film is nearly thirty years old, Blue Thunder’s visceral obsession with state-of-the-art aerial combat (over a modern American city, Los Angeles, no less), permits it to hold up much better than WarGames.  Also, the film remains relevant in part because of the strongly enunciated social commentary about man and his machines. 

In short, machines don’t yet boast the capacity for morality, and so man must decide how to use his new toys.  In Frank Murphy -- a veteran who witnessed immorality among men in Vietnam -- the audience gets a hero who represents mankind’s inherent struggle against entrenched power, and power unconcerned with the good of the many, but rather the riches of a few.  Yet despite being outnumbered and outgunned, Murphy won’t let the machine take over, even if that outcome is precisely what big government and big business apparently desire.

In gazing intently at conspiracy and corruption (not to mention the nexus of government and big business government contractors), Blue Thunder in some fashion feels like a product of the 1970s, the great age of conspiracy movies.  But the strong focus on computers and technology also gives it the Video Game Age sheen of the early 1980s. 

In whatever way one chooses to parse the film, Blue Thunder remains a hell of a lot of fun.

“I love morals, and the moral of this story is: If you're walkin' on eggs, don't hop.”


Cop Frank Murphy (Roy Scheider) and his rookie co-pilot Lymangood (Daniel Stern) of Los Angeles Air Support test fly a new urban pacification helicopter nicknamed “Blue Thunder,” over the city streets, and while on surveillance or “whisper” mode, learn of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving corruption and murder. 

The makers of Blue Thunder prototype have been making trouble in L.A.’s barrio so the city will requisition more copters to manage the crime problem before the upcoming 1984 Olympics.  This top secret project to create urban mayhem is called Project T.H.O.R. (Tactical Helicopter Offensive Response).  Worse, Murphy’s old nemesis from the Vietnam War, Colonel Cochrane (Malcolm McDowell) is one of the key conspirators behind the scenes.

Murphy and Lymangood -- or JAFO (Just Another F’ing Observer) -- secretly videotape a conversation about T.H.O.R. from the cockpit of Blue Thunder but soon become fugitives from the police and City Hall.  When Lymangood is murdered by Cochrane’s goons, Murphy steals Blue Thunder and asks his girlfriend, Kate (Candy Clark) to deliver the incriminating videotape to a local news station.

While Kate eludes the police on the ground, Blue Thunder and Murphy are called upon to battle police helicopters, state-of-the-art Air force jets (armed with heat-seeking missiles), and Cochrane’s gun ship…

You're really riding with the angels, sweetheart.


The Blue Thunder screenplay by the late Dan O’Bannon and Don Jakoby certainly sets up some amazing action sequences, but it’s also clumsy and contrived at crucial points. 

For instance, McDowell utters his character’s catchphrase -- “Catch you later!” -- a whopping three times in the first forty five minutes of the film, thus paving the way for a triumphant turnaround from Murphy at the denouement.  When Murphy blows up Cochrane’s gunship, he says, inevitably, “Catch you later!”  The laborious repetition of the phrase is so contrived and stupid that it’s easy to see the punch line coming.  That established, the audience I saw the film with in the theater in 1983 absolutely loved it, so who am I to complain?

Similarly, there’s a weird scene early in the film wherein Kate, Murphy’s girlfriend, takes a wrong turn on the way to a Sunday family outing with Frank and her son.  She recklessly drives her car into oncoming traffic to get back on course, and, well, let’s just say it’s an egregiously hazardous act, especially with a child on board.  But, of course, Kate’s slightly-crazy nature (not to mention demolition-derby driving skills…) are important ingredients in the film’s climax, so again, we’re seeing a laborious and somewhat clumsy set-up.

You could probably make the same point about all the exposition regarding Murphy’s aerodynamically-impossible “loop” in a chopper.  It gets brought up so many times before the film’s end that we just know there’s going to be a “pay off.”  

Certainly, Blue Thunder is not alone in harvesting seeds like this early in the film, for cropping at the climax. It’s just that the set-ups here are so brazenly transparent.

Yet here’s the thing.  You absolutely will not care.

The film’s final thirty minutes feature jaw-dropping stunt after jaw-dropping stunt, both on the ground and in the air.  And Blue Thunder vets this material with almost no fakery, which is incredible.  As an adrenaline ride, then, Blue Thunder succeeds wildly.  This film also made me realize just how long it’s been since we’ve seen an action movie like this one; one that doesn’t rely, to some unhealthy extent, on digital effects.  The car chase, in particular, is riveting. 

It may not be politically-correct to write this, but there’s a thrill that comes from knowing that movie stuntmen and stunt pilots really performed the actions in question.  Here, some of the helicopter stunts near the ground, and weaving in and around a sewer and bridge system, are downright stunning (and terrifying). As a result, you leave a viewing of the movie feeling exhilarated.

Blue Thunder in action.

And again...

To its credit, Blue Thunder also finds a perfect metaphor for the relationship between man and machine. Murphy wears a clunky-looking wrist-watch that can count up to a minute, or sixty seconds.

As it does so, it displays a very 1980s-style, spiro-graph-looking graphic of a circle moving towards completion.  Murphy utilizes this stop-watch function to test his sanity….several times-a-day.  If he can still tell time, or possess a “feeling” about the reality of time, he’s sure he isn’t going insane. 

In terms of psychology, this timed “sanity test” might be considered a little bit hokey.  In terms of metaphor, it’s actually pretty good.  The watch, like Blue Thunder itself, is a machine that humans can control…if they choose to do so.  

Technology too is a test, then, to be mastered, not something that should be allowed to oppress or control mankind. Murphy understands this fact of life.  He masters his life (represented by the watch) and uses that same determination to master the helicopter, and, finally, make an ethical final decision about it.  If he can master terrifying memories (represented by the Vietnam flashbacks), then certainly Murphy and others can master machines and computers.

Mastering self; mastering the machine.

At its heart, Blue Thunder concerns this idea, that man must rein in and manage his machines, and not vice-versa, or humanity will pay the price.  In addition, however, the film worries about new technologies which could diminish privacy and create a Big Brother-type world where no one’s secrets are safe. 

At one point, Murphy and Lymangood track a motorcycle cop to an assignation with a bored housewife.  They listen in on him making love to her, and then, afterwards, erase the tape, realizing that it is a horrible invasion of privacy.  Again, Murphy acts as the film’s moral barometer.  That motorcycle cop may be a laughing stock, and he may be engaged in a morally-questionable act, but, as Murphy concludes, people deserve to have their “quickies” in peace.  

That’s a silly example, perhaps, of what’s at stake in the modern surveillance society, but like the stop-watch metaphor, it concisely makes an important point.  If we are to remain free, we must have some surveillance free zones where we can simply be….human.  We must have some places to let down and simply be ourselves, without fear of being observed, or worse, blackmailed.

What happens when machines are everywhere, and they see and hear everything?
From an amazingly graphic scene of naked calisthenics (!) early-on to a great supporting performance by Warren Oates as Murphy’s put-upon superior at Air Support, Blue Thunder flies by with almost no wasted energy, and a surfeit of good humor, intrigue and action.  If I had to select one film today, I’d probably choose Blue Thunder over WarGames, in terms of Badham’s oeuvre, in part because of the performances, in part because of the rousing action, and in part because of that gorgeous helicopter, which even today looks like absolute poetry in motion. 


The film’s final scene, which sees Murphy pulp Blue Thunder in a final act of defiance to City Hall, makes perfect sense in terms of the film’s theme and story line.  But I still hate to see the old girl go up in a fireball.  

Of course, It’s the right climactic move for a movie about conspiracies and about concerns over privacy.  But the thirteen year old kid who first saw Blue Thunder just knew there should have been further adventures, with Murphy again mastering the (wonderful) machine.

The Films of 1983: Twilight Zone: The Movie

Friday, October 12, 2012


Submitted for your approval… a genre movie from the year 1983 which confirms the old adage, “you can’t go home again.” 

Case in point: Twilight Zone: The Movie, a big-budget anthology directed by the best of the Brat Generation Hollywood directors: John Landis (An American Werewolf in London [1981]), Steven Spielberg (E.T.[1982]), Joe Dante (The Howling [1981]) and George Miller (The Road Warrior [1982]). 

All these talented directors grew up with tremendous affection for Rod Serling’s landmark fantasy/horror anthology, which aired on CBS TV from 1959-1964.  That these directors were well-intentioned is unquestioned.  But the cinematic results are perhaps not quite what audiences hoped for. 
I
n part, of course, the film’s reputation has been sullied by a terrible accident.

During filming of the movie’s first segment, directed by John Landis, lead actor Vic Morrow and two child actors were killed in a tragic helicopter accident.  The filmmakers were then tried for negligence and eventually exonerated in a very well-publicized trial.  But the bottom line is that Twilight Zone: The Movie -- and especially that first tale -- are simply not enterprises worth dying over.  That two of the deaths involved children makes the matter even more gruesome and sickening.

Outside of the unforeseen circumstances of the notorious and fatal accident, Twilight Zone: The Movie suffers from a crucial strategic mistake.  It remakes three very strong episodes from the television series, and in doing so fails to improve on them.  Now, some people might insist that a movie and television series are surely apples and oranges, so why compare?  The answer is that one quality of good criticism is, indeed, the ability to meaningfully compare and contrast works of art.  In this case, the movie rewrites of the three original TV teleplays are simply inferior to the originals.  This is the case in terms of writing, characterization, and heart, if not in terms of monetary resources.

This is not to state that all the remakes are utter failures. “Kick the Can” is a dramatic failure along with the first story, “Time Out,” but “It’s a Good Life” and “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” are entertaining and intriguing efforts…just not up to the (admittedly-high) standard set by the TV series.

The underlying question here is this: Why would three inventive directors remake (and not faithfully, either) three stories already told and so well-known, veritably inviting such invidious comparisons?  

Why didn’t these directors at least attempt to offer something new and fresh?  In 1983, Twilight Zone fans had already seen more than enough reruns, after all.  And it’s hard to see the appeal of reruns that -- though boasting bigger budgets -- don’t tell the stories as ably.

Featuring two very weak stories, and two decent ones -- with an excellent wraparound narrative device, featuring Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd also thrown into the equation) -- Twilight Zone: The Movie is a mixed bag indeed, and one that demonstrate, if nothing else, just how remarkable Rod Serling’s original series truly was.  The movie never feels like much more than a Cliffnotes version of the Twilight Zone, read aloud, as it were, by some very ingenious directors.

“Wanna see something really scary?”

In the realm called the Twilight Zone -- a land of shadow and substance, of things and ideas -- four fantastic stories unfold.

In the first, Bill (Vic Morrow) is a bigot who gets a taste of his own hateful medicine when he becomes a Jew in Nazi Germany, an African American at a KKK rally in the South of the 1950s, and a “gook” under attack by American armed forces during the Vietnam War.   In the end, he is carted off to a concentration camp, with no hope for reprieve…

In the second story, kindly old Mr. Bloom (Scatman Crothers) brings vitality and joy to the residents of Sunnyvale Retirement home with a magical game of Kick the Can.  The old folks are transformed into children, but then Mr. Bloom cajoles them into returning to their older bodies.

During the third story, “It’s a Good Life,” teacher Helen Foley (Kathleen Quinlan) meets an unusual child named Anthony (Jeremy Licht), who can re-shape reality to his will.  But all he wants is a family that really loves him.  Helen, realizing that Anthony needs a loving but strong influence in his life, takes him under wing.

And finally, a nervous flyer named John Valentine (John Lithgow) spots a terrifying creature – a hideous gremlin-- on the wing of the airliner while in flight (and during a storm to boot).

“Time Out”

First and foremost, Twilight Zone: The Movie may serve as a reminder that a big budget and big name directors don’t necessarily ensure superior quality.  The fact of the matter is that the three remakes feared here, while of variable quality, are universally less-successful than the episodes on which they are based. 

But the original story, “Time Out” is an unmitigated disaster.  I write that, by the way, as an affirmed admirer of John Landis’s great An American Werewolf in London.

But “Time Out” is a mindless runaround filled with explosions, chases and battles, but little humanity and little understandingof humanity.  Worse, it boasts no sense of proportion and no sense of the Twilight Zone’s essentially just nature. 

Here, William Connor is a man with “a chip the size of the national debt” on his shoulder, a man who seems to possess a blind hatred for all non-whites.  In the story, he goes to a bar, meets some friends, and immediately rails (loudly…) against Jews, Arabs, and African-Americans.  There’s no doubt he’s a big mouth, and an unlikeable fellow.  As I wrote in Horror Films of the 1980s, once you meet William Connor, you want to shut him up with a punch to the mouth.

But had this story been vetted by someone like Rod Serling, however, Connor might have faced a different excursion to the Zone.  Perhaps he would have awakened one morning to find himself in the body of an African-American. Throughout his day, he would have then been confronted head-on with racist behavior of all forms, both overt and subtle.  By experiencing the reality of racism -- by living in the shoes of another human being -- Connor would have learn something about human nature, and perhaps have come to see the error of his ways.  

But none of that happens here.  Instead, Connor gets carted off to Nazi Germany, where he is chased.  Then he ends up in 1950s Alabama, at a rally for the Klan…and is chased.  And then he ends up in the swamps of Vietnam…and is chased again, until an explosion somehow blows him back to Nazi Germany and he is captured. 

Then, he ends up in a death train, bound for a concentration camp.  The story ends with no hope, no rescue, and, importantly, no learning on his part about what he did wrong.

Not only is the accent on action and explosions absolutely wrong for The Twilight Zone, but the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.  Connor talks a big show, but he never sets out to physically harm anyone in the story.  He’s a bully and a loud mouth, certainly, but does he deserve to die in the concentration camps because he is a big-mouth bigot? 

Death camps were wrong on any and every level imaginable -- a testament to our cruelty as a species -- and the people who died in them didn’t deserve such a fate, either. But as thinking and moral human beings, we can recognize that nobody, not even a bigot, should die in one simply because he used ugly words.

It’s a very severe punishment for diarrhea of the mouth.  I submit Bill could have been better taught a lesson about his racist views in a more pro-human, social way.  As it stands, what’s the moral upshot of the climax? 

Well, that’s one less bigot in the world!  Woo-hoo!

Basically, everything that could be wrong with this particular story is wrong.  Connor goes to his death over speaking (loathsome) racial slurs, and is thus denied the opportunity to learn why he was wrong to use them.  On TV, The Twilight Zone rarely seemed this draconian.  There, the punishment would largely fit the crime, which is something you can’t say of this empty action tale. 

If you look back at Twilight Zone stories such as “The Encounter,” you can see how Serling took on racism in a less two-dimensional style.  In that particular tale, a young Japanese man (George Takei) and an American World War II veteran viewed each other with distrust and dislike because of the war experience, for instance.  “I am the Night, Color Me Black,” also looked at institutionalized racism in the South, and how it is an affront not just to the law, but to God. 

Both of those stories reveal more depth and heart than “Time Out.” 

“Kick in the Can”

Alas, Steven Spielberg’s sentimental “Kick the Can” is not much better than “Time Out.” 

Here, a group of cuddly old people -- virtually all of them Jewish stereotypes -- are magically granted the opportunity to be children again when a kindly stranger brings a night of magic to their dreary nursing home.   

In the original episode that aired on television, one of the old folks at the home came up with the idea himself that he had grown old because he had stopped playing.  To play, he insisted, was to be young.

Thus in the TV version, the magic arose from within the residents of the home themselves as they re-
connected with their inner children.  It was a beautiful and heart-wrenching tale about how growing old isn’t just a quality of the body, a physical thing, but a mental thing too.  And it’s never too late to recapture that youth; to play.  You just have to find the child within.  You just have to remember what it is to be young.

Such noble and affirming ideas are lost in Twilight Zone: The Movie because Scatman Crothers plays a wandering magician who generously bestows youth on others, whether they ask for it or not.   Suddenly, the quality of youth is not an internal one, a quality that can be “activated” by one and all.  Instead, it is the magic pixie dust of a wandering Peter Pan, doled out like candy, and then taken back.

Indeed, Mr. Bloom’s whole modus operandi is extremely bizarre.  He urges the old folks to play kick the can and experience youth, and then, once they are transformed into children again, urges them to go back to their old bodies.  In other words, he’s forces them to dance to his tune, to learn what he wants them to, and, then, even draw the same conclusion he has drawn.    

These poor old folk really get jerked around, but the important thing is that the discovery process of “being young at heart” is lost.  These old folks are denied the learning they were afforded in the TV program, and so the message gets lost, or at least muddled.

Frankly, it’s a mystery why the original TV script wasn’t deployed here, instead of an inferior knock-off that misses the point.  In terms of visualization, the story looks muddy, a mélange of browns and gold -- no doubt to suggest the autumn of life.  And the camera work features an unfortunate, claustrophobic quality that is never relieved, even when the senior citizens are made young again. 

“It’s a Good Life”

Joe Dante’s installment, “It’s a Good Life” is a huge step-up in terms of quality, yet it also can’t quite stand-up to the powerful memory of the TV episode, which featured Bill Mumy as an over-indulged, super-powerful kid who could wish people “into the cornfield.” 

There, in that TV version, the horror dwelt in the suggestion of what horrible things Anthony might do.  A man who dared to challenge the boy was turned into a springing jack-in-the-box, for instance, but it was seen only in creepy, imagination-provoking silhouette. 

Here, director Joe Dante goes full-throttle into cartoon mayhem, creating Looney Tunes-styled nightmares to threaten teacher Helen Foley (Kathleen Quinlan) and Anthony’s family.  But where the TV story concerned an indulged child who thrived because people refused to draw limits, the movie version is a special effects freak show about a lonely kid who creates monsters – wait for it -- to be loved. 

Two problems with this approach: First, Anthony’s family is depicted as being bad…as though it is somehow at fault for being afraid of him and his monstrous creations. And secondly, Anthony does horrible things (like disintegrating one sister’s mouth, and consigning another to cartoon hell…) and we are supposed to forgive him -- feel sorry for him -- because he is so lonely and unloved. 

He may indeed be lonely and unloved and therefore deserving of sympathy, but that doesn’t excuse the way he tortures his family.

And the story’s ending is pure sentimentality and fantasy land: Anthony and his new “Mom,” Helen, drive off into the metaphorical sunset as sweet, fantasy flowers suddenly bloom, dotting the landscape. 

Just wait until that kid is a teenager, Helen, and then let’s see how you do with little Anthony…

Like “Kick the Can,” “It’s a Good Life” loses the emotional and narrative meat of the televised story, and replaces that meat with lesser…confections.  The special effects are great, for instance, and the cartoon world absolutely unnerving, not to mention original.  As a fan of Heckyl and Jeckyl, I love how Dante uses that old series’ episode “The Power of Thought” to reflect Anthony’s ability to recreate the world, as if it too is a cartoon.

There’s good stuff here, absolutely, and the visuals are dazzling enough to gloss over the narrative and character deficits.  But those deficits do exist, and occasionally come through. 

For instance, we are never quite sure what Helen is thinking when she agrees to take over parental responsibilities for Anthony.  Does she see his powers as a tool she can wield?  Or is she pure of heart, and wishing only to help a lonely child?  Helen remains such an undeveloped character that her motives stay opaque
.
Nightmare at 20,000 Feet.”

“Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” ends the movie on fine horror footing. Here, a twitchy, over-the-top John Lithgow battles a fierce gremlin on the wing of a plane in flight. 

Director George Miller adopts claustrophobic framing and cockeyed-angles so as to make us feel the breadth of Lithgow’s panic.  He succeeds well in making the jet feel more like a flying coffin than you average-every day conveyance.  In presentation and form, this episode is truly scary, even a tour de force in terms of style.   A perfect ending story, it is dominated by electric jolts and a strong sense of menace.

But again, the original version’s subtlety is missed.  The episode, directed by Richard Donner, involved a man, played by William Shatner, recovering from a nervous breakdown.  Because of the man’s history, there was a tension in the episode between what people expected of him, and how he reported what he saw. 

In other words, he was a man desperately trying to hold onto his dignity at the same time that he battled an impossible creature from the Twilight Zone. 

In the movie, that tension is gone, because Valentine just happens to be a very nervous flyer.  Nobody knows him, and he has no history of crying wolf, so-to-speak.

Clearly, this is the best segment in the film, and it gets by largely on directorial legerdemain.  And that gremlin is scary as hell, a notable improvement on the fluffy gremlin of the TV series.

A crucial part of my 1983 summer of fan discontent – along with Return of the Jedi and Superman III -- Twilight Zone: The Movieis slicker and more manipulative than any tale Rod Serling ever imagined, yet also less clever, less soulful, and less terrifying too.  

This Twilight Zone movie is more “shadow” and less “substance” than the TV series provided on a weekly basis for five years.

Movie Trailer: WarGames (1983)

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

207. Chiefs

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

207. (17 Sep) Chiefs (1983, Jerry London) 60



Chiefs is a delightfully luird look at a rural town in Georgia. It's credible in its realistic depictions of racism and small town life, but it's Keith Carradine as a sexual predator and murderer of young boys that makes this noteworthy. He's a bland villain, but it's shocking and enticing material. Despite a strong ensemble, only Carradine got an Emmy nomination, but he offers the least nuanced performance here. Brad Davis is particularly fun as a wild-eyed, horndog police officer. Charlton Heston, Billy Dee Williams and Stephen Collins also make good use of their screentime.

206. Adam

206. (17 Sep) Adam (1983, Michael Tuchner) 67



Even at its preachiest, Adam is fraught with so much tension and emotion it breaks your heart. JoBeth Williams is especially superb here. The terror she feels when her little boy is abducted is palpable as she admirably never resorts to hysterics. Daniel J. Travanti takes a different, more explosive approach. When he rampages after learning his son's fate, it's not nearly as powerful as Williams's understated sorrow. The latter part of the film has the couple channeling their grief into something positive. The tragic atmosphere remains overpowering throughout.

095. Pod People

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

095. (16 Mar) Pod People (1983, Juan Piquer Simón) 4

Terms of Endearment

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Terms of Endearment, 1983
Directed by James L. Brooks
Nominated for 11 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: The Big Chill, The Dresser, The Right Stuff, Tender Mercies

Terms of Endearment is a mother-daughter story. Aurora lost her husband when her only daughter Emma was a young girl. It's been the two of them for most of Emma's life. When Aurora tells Emma, the night before her wedding, that marrying her fiancee, Flap, will be a catastrophic mistake, things get tense for the two. Emma marries Flap while her mother doesn't attend the wedding, and the two move away because Flap gets a job teaching English at a university.

During their time living apart, we follow their 2 different stories. Aurora is on her own, living with only herself and a maid or two. She strikes up an extremely unlikely relationship with her drunken, womanizing, ex-astronaut neighbour, despite the fact that she is prim, proper and strict, hardly able to tolerate his (Garrett's) ways. Meanwhile, Emma and Flap are having troubles of their own. They now have several kids, and are short on money. Emma starts to expect Flap is cheating, while she goes out into a little affair herself.

The movie doesn't have a plot, exactly. This is a movie about life, and the struggles and joys within them. Both Debra Winger (Emma) and Shirley MacLaine (Aurora) give fantastic performances. Debra Winger as the awkward and headstrong daughter, and Shirley MacLaine as the prim, proper and harsh mother. Also, both Jack Nicholson and Jeff Daniels give great supporting performances.

I commend the movie for giving such real performances and portrayals of life. Life doesn't have 'plots', it is just moving along, and there are good things and bad things, but we must have relationships, especially healthy ones.

What I wasn't crazy about in this movie was we didn't really get to know the characters. We saw flashes of their lives at different points in time, over several years, but never did we really get to know their characters. We never got to see why Aurora fell in love with Garrett, and what changed about what she felt about him. We didn't the gradual breakdown of Emma and Flap's marriage, we only saw them happy one moment and then angry and yelling the next. I felt this movie would've been a lot stronger had the character been portrayed more 2D. But that's just me.

While I don't usually spoil reviews, this one I can't really help. The last half hour, when Emma is in a bad position with Flap and her children (her eldest son seems to really hate her), but having a decent relationship with her mother, she discovers she has cancer- and is dying. This would've been a much more moving bit if I'd known the characters and cared for them more than I did. But I didn't. And that's just why the movie almost worked for me, but not quite.

6.5/10

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1983

Friday, May 6, 2011

1983



So the much anticipated ranking is:

I liked Winger as Emma. I may not be in awe of her as much as others, I can appreciate the merits of Winger's work. Although the performance starts out a bit boring, it improves in time and it becomes a very interesting one that has a great effect on the viewer. It might be the fact that I don't like this type of characters very much but I wasn't that impressed.

there are fantastic scenes in this performance of Jane Alexander but the overall impact is a bit mixed. This work is a bit incoherent and the character could have been developed better. It's the screenplay's fault mostly but Jane Alexander couldn't avoid all the traps set by the writing. Still, some astonishing moments really make up for the weaker ones.

I have to say that Shirley MacLaine is just excellent as Aurora Greenway in Terms of Endearment. Although I'm not as impressed by her some many others, I like her performance very much and I found her exceptionally entertaining. I have my problems, unfortunately but the overall effect of it is quite positive.

I cannot deny Meryl's greatness as Karen Silkwood. she's sometimes incredibly great and it's great to see Meryl play such an odd character. I'd really like to praise this performance as I feel it's really great and I most certainly loved her. Meryl is really gripping in this role and shows Karen's development brilliantly.

This performance is not as popular and talked about as the other ones this of year even though it really should be. Julie Walters gives a fantastic, heartwrenching and very emotional performance as Rita, a girl who just wants to sing a better song. I was really touched by Walters' natural acting, loveable presence and great sense of humor.

So I can proudly announce
that my winner is...
Julie Walters
in
Educating Rita

This is a better song, aye? :)

Omissions: 
  • Hédi Temessy in Job's Revolt *My Pick*


Final thoughts: Again, I less than satisfying year. I was first blown away by Julie whose luminous presence made my pick easy in the end, despite the fact that I changed my winner many times. Meryl really grew on me and in the end, but I was still disappointed. Shirley was quite good, Jane and Debra were good, too but not that much. And again, I picked a not-so-popular nominee but I really don't care. I love controversial making decisions. It may not even be controversial, though. :)



The ranking of the reviewed years:

  1. 1944
  2. 1969
  3. 1974
  4. 1989
  5. 1959
  6. 2006
  7. 1964
  8. 1939
  9. 1977
  10. 2010
  11. 1997
  12. 2009
  13. 1980
  14. 1941
  15. 1972
  16. 1963
  17. 1966
  18. 1973
  19. 1983
  20. 1990
  21. 1978
  22. 1954
  23. 1948
  24. 2002
  25. 1957
  26. 1940
  27. 1998
About the next year: It's going to be a great one and I start it on 19th. Until that, no posts, sorry. The return will be great, though. :) I won"t give clues this time because I'm not sure which year I should do.

What do you think?

Meryl Streep in Silkwood

Meryl Streep received her fifth Oscar nomination for playing Karen Silkwood, a working woman who learns the shocking truth about the place where she works in the movie Silkwood. Under normal circumstances, I would say that Meryl received the second most votes but she had just won her second Oscar a year before. So I guess the Academy was not as eager to give her the third Oscar as they are now. I think only those voted for her who really loved her performance and people primarily voted for her because she was great.

Silkwood is a good film. I wouldn't say it's unforgettable but it's worth watching once or twice. Mike Nichols is a director who made some fantastic movies in the sixties, which are really unforgettable but in time his movies became a bit artificial (in the eighties, precisely). They want to give some social message and yet they don't want to give up on being really entertaining. Why eactly? Many people are blown away by Cher's performance in this movie and although I found her quite impressive, I don't think she should have won over Linda Hunt.

Meryl Streep is pretty much the Academy Award Queen. Or Award Queen, to put it precisely. She's really an awards magnet and I would be very surprised if she didn't win her third for The Iron Lady. OK, I know that they say the movie is gonna suck but come on. Meryl is quite technical and she's really someone who wants everything to be pitch-perfect in her performance. I guess that's sometimes a real advantage and sometimes it can go really wrong. It mostly works but sometimes it really doesn't. Plus, nowadays she has these role where she seemingly haves fun (It's Complicated, Mamma Mia!) and they are horrible though not only because of her.

Meryl seems to be at her prime nowadays but I think that's not really correct. Meryl is always at her prime and there was a period where she wasn't really herself (in the second half of the ninties). She became a major star in the eighties and receieved six Best Actress nominations in one decade. Silkwood came in this very prolific and succesful period of her career and it's become one of her most respected performances and it's always dangerous to write about such a work.

Karen Silkwood is a character who is quite interesting and the performer can benefit very much from that. She had a very mysterious death and as a result, the character herself has some kind of a mystery, too. Still, I think it was a great decision by the filmmakers to make Karen a very ordinary woman (I love using this word with 1983, I know). She's a bit vulgar, a bit unlikeable and so on. However, somehow Meryl wins our sympathy.

The technical part of this performance is just terrific and flawless. Amazing Grace is brilliantly sung by Meryl and it was very touching to hear it. Meryl worked extremely well with the accent, the mannerisms but that's something that you expect from Meryl. I especially loved the small ticks that she added to this character. Really, I couldn't say a single flaw in the technical part. Everything was just fine and excellently done by her.

I also loved how she developed the character. Karen discovers some really ugly facts about the dangers of the nuclear plant where she was working and the way she became more and more smart was fascinatingly handled by Meryl. This aspect of her performance really did benefit from Meryl's awareness and confidence. Karen's development is rather standard but Meryl makes it all very interesting.

And yet, as I said, I'm a tiny bit disappointed because this is a performance where I keep remembering Black Swan. Just like Nina Sayers, Meryl wanted to get everything just perfect and never lost herself completely. I felt that she was a bit too aware and in control. I felt that she's great enough to let this character go after a while. She could have been thoroughly mindblowing as she IS mindblowing in most of the scenes.

However, this doesn't mean that her acting is not gripping because it is. You don't really see Meryl Streep there, you really see Karen Silkwood, a very determined woman, who's willing to fight for justice. Plus, those shower scenes are brutally effective.

Nevertheless, I cannot deny Meryl's greatness as Karen Silkwood. Despite the fact that I wasn't totally blown away, I just cannot forget her whole performance. The technical part is, of course, flawless, it's just that I wasn't totally blown away by Meryl's whole achievement. Still, she's incredibly great and it's great to see Meryl play such an odd character. I'd really like to praise this performance as I feel it's really great and I most certainly loved her.

What do you think? I don't know when The Final Conclusion comes as the ranking is very hard.
 

Blogger news

Blogroll

Most Reading