noticing the poster makers realized they needed to not tell everyone their favorites aren't really in the movie
Watched: 10/21/2021
Format: Disney+
Viewing: First
Decade: 1980's
Director: Walter Murch
I am categorizing this movie as a kid's horror movie, because (a) that's how Jamie, who has seen it, pitched it to me, and (b) this is a horror movie. Starring and for kids. I don't know if that's what anyone set out to make, but that's what it is. Dorothy returns to a post-apocalyptic Oz where everyone is "dead", and she's pursued relentlessly by murderous creatures. This is AFTER she's almost given experimental shock treatment to make her forget Oz. There's a headless woman and her cabinetry of de-capitated heads she can wear who is going to enslave Dorothy for future decapitation. Dorothy's then put into some weirdo Saw type situation and has to outmaneuver the guy playing with her life.
All of which would be fine - kids can take a lot - except that the movie is joyless and a slog.
A few weeks ago, tweeter Dr. PopCulture BGSU posted a picture or two from a movie of which I'd never before heard discussed, Killer Workout (1987), and I vowed to watch this movie at some point. Well, our own JimD decided, YES, we would both see this movie, and so a copy showed up in the mail.
I am genuinely supportive of the genre film preservation going on in weird little corners. There's basically no reason anyone should work to preserve and distribute Killer Workout. It's a very low-budget film with no bankable stars, bad cinematography, as wobbly a plot as you're going to find, and zero logic. Sort of. But. Movies like this were an important part of the cinema world for a long time, and they've mostly disappeared as VHS players and tapes have headed to the bin. It's weird that we may lose a lot of movies because of dedication to a format.
Olive Films is a newer but growing distribution company doing good work out there, bringing a wide range of film types to the market - from respectable classic film to.... Killer Workout. They seem really cool and I need to spend more time reviewing their catalog. I would LOVE to know more about their efforts to preserve and distribute films - but I have a lot of questions about their presentation of Killer Workout. It *seems* like they had an idea to not just get the movie out there, but retain some of the VHS experience.
Gothic (1986) is one of those movies I remember always seeing on the shelf at movie rental places. It was always in, but I never pulled the trigger and watched it. I'm thinking the copy on the box describing the movie was not great, because - I believe - had it been more accurate, I would have rented the movie.
Based loosely on some real-life events (and then deeply fictionalized), the movie imagines about 24 hours of drug-fueled shenanigans in a mansion in Geneva at the turn of the 18th to the 19th Century as Percy Shelley, Mary Godwin (soon to be Mary Shelley) and Mary's step-sister arrive to have a hang with the notorious libertine, Lord Byron - in self-exile from England.
So, for some time, my pals who are horror fiends have been saying to me "have you ever seen the 1980's Blob remake?" and I've said "yes" and they say "did you like it?" and I laugh, and say "it was fine, but I haven't seen it since it first hit VHS." And then they say "well, you have to rewatch it."
What I failed to ask was "but why?"
Circa 1989, I did watch The Blob remake on VHS. I recall it was my brother and me during the summer, and we called Kevin Dillon "Rocky the Reckless Driver", laughed a lot about his mullet (which has to be a crazy wig) and, at the time, felt it was an okay movie, but not great.
Friends, I need some feedback in the comments, because my takeaway from rewatching The Blob (1988) is that it's an okay movie, but not great.
I genuinely don't know if this movie was kidding or not. It's not funny enough to be a straight up horror satire, but it does do some things I quite liked. Now knowing more about horror films when I first saw it - I'm still not sure if the filmmakers were being "edgy" or - possibly - subverting audience expectations. Like, they just bump off all sorts of people who would have been the survivors in other films. The good-hearted football player, the waitress, the sheriff... a kid! It's wild.
It also has a certain attempt at Last Starfighter folksiness for our hero, Rocky the Reckless Driver and The Cheerleader (I cannot recall her character's name but the actress is Shawnee Smith who is still very active). People are very small town and folksy. As the town's Bad Boy, Rocky the Reckless Driver sure is a problem for the Sheriff. After all, he has a bad attitude! Again - I have no idea if the movie is kidding or not about this character. Or the attitudes of the town.
Anyway, the effects are good for a 1988-era mid-budget sci-fi film, and they don't screw around with much in the way of sideplots. Instead, using what seem like side-plot set-ups that should go someplace else as a red-herring so you don't think certain people will be consumed by Mr. Blob.
I also don't get how a Blob that can't tolerate cold was matured in space. But that is not for me to know. But I do like the pivot and plot twist that this was a government experiment gone wrong versus a rogue asteroid. I'm not sure it actually impacts anything, but you feel less bad when the containment suited government agents start getting et.
Anyway, you people have been telling me this movie is great. It's okay! So, lemme know what you love about it.
It can't be that good. It doesn't have a rockin' theme song like the original.
Simon and Ryan go nuts talking the second and unexpected installment in the adventures of a boy who is maybe a little too close with his mother. We're reminded the 80's weren't that much after the 60's as Stormin' Norman returns back to Casa Bates to start over and maybe enjoy his role as a motel entrepreneur. Could things go wrong? Hey, let's not get crazy here.
It's a not-great film that doesn't understand how cheap horror movies are supposed to work, or movies in general, and is weirdly pretentious. Which, frankly, if you told me yesterday that CHUD (1984) has lots of scenes that feel like they're improvised by a couple of actors who've been taking a lot of classes, and it will all be treated with deadly seriousness: I would not have believed you. But here we are.
All of that stuff, by the way, is fine: if any of it lands. Or the movie is earning it. Or the writing doesn't get away from the movie. But at the end of the day, this is a movie about Morlocks eating people, and for some reason we spend 1/3rd of the movie in an unrelated story about John Heard's career and his relationship. None of which is CHUD-related. Or particularly good.
By far the weirdest are the extended scenes between Daniel Stern and Christopher Curry, where both are intent on playing unhinged and angry. And the scenes just. keep. happening. Both in length and frequency.
In theory the movie is about NYC having a problem with Carnivorous Humanoid Underground Dwellers, but it's also about a soup kitchen, the plight of the homeless, a career change that's really impacting a marriage that might be on the rocks, and a cop who seems really stressed out because his wife disappeared, but he fails to mention this as a problem until the second half of the film.
Also, the willing belief that nuclear waste was disposed of beneath NYC when it would literally be easier to put it on a boat and float it out 20 miles and dump it.
Maybe the WEIRDEST moment of the movie was when we saw a scene that I now believe James Cameron must have ripped off for Aliens where people with flamethrowers go down into the tunnels with a video camera while their bosses watch them on monitors. That's gonna sit with me a while.
I have been intending to watch this since I was 18, and I always just forgot to watch it. But "Add to My List" and HBOmax are an excellent pairing for getting me to actually watch some things.
I don't have a ton to say about the movie. It's good, Rated-R chaotic fun, and I was shocked to see James Karen in the first scenes, and then realize I was also looking at Clu Gulager.
Anyhoo. Not writing it up, but very glad I finally saw it.
Simon and Ryan delve into the sequels of some Halloween and horror greats, returning to the scene of the crime with a mix of technology and magic! Join us as we discuss the follow ups to a bona fide classic - one a direct sequel and one a terrific deviation from the formula! Plus: ATKINS. Come spend a spooktacular hour with your two (g)hosts, in a continuation of a Halloween series!
this scene isn't in the movie, and I don't think that lady is, either
Watched: 09/29/2021
Format: Amazon
Viewing: First
Decade: 1980's
Director: Brian DePalma
I have two memories of Body Double (1984) existing, although this was the first time I'd seen the film.
1. This movie was always on the shelf at every video store and had a sorta naked lady on the cover, sporting at least slightly less clothes than a Sears underwear ad. It's ubiquity was part of my growing recognition that grown-ups did go and see movies with skin in them that were about sexiness - and that did not equal "porn". So, I guess this cover was part of my realization that genre included the "erotic thriller" alongside slasher flicks and Rated-R comedies.
2. In high school I read American Psycho, which was not on the reading list. I'm in no rush to return to the book, but the movie turns satire into straight up comedy. I dunno. The film felt defanged to me, but was probably the only way to get it made. One sign of Bateman's... issues was that he belonged to a video club and would continually check out and return Body Double. It's an ongoing concern in the book whether he has returned his tape and whether it's available.
Like a lot of movies I felt were not going to be something I could rent as a kid, I sort of compartmentalized Body Double and just never saw it. So, after Paul and I were talking about DePalma for reasons tied to a different film, I figured I'd take 6th grade me who'd seen this movie's cover so many times and finally just watch the thing.
Well, it's now an annual thing that I watch Elvira: Mistress of the Dark(1988). So, I won't belabor y'all with yet another pondering of the film.
This year, Cassandra Peterson is marking 40 years in the dress as Elvira, originally a late-night horror hostess character that somehow has spun out into a cultural icon. These days, Peterson does conventions, co-owns/ed a convention, does talk-shows, cooking shows, whatever it takes to pay the bills - including selling comics in which her character partakes in comedically spooky adventures (currently at Dynamite). And! she's got fashion lines, shops and a bit of a merchandising empire.
She also just turned 70, and released a tell-all biography that is sitting on my coffee table. Recently she's been a hit on talk shows making the rounds plugging the book as it contained the revelation she hasn't been single in 19 years (which I couldn't personally figure out) as she's partnered up with a lady friend. It's all been very buzzy in a very positive way.
One of those films - Elvira: Mistress of the Dark. So, yeah, it's a heavy serving of meta wrapped in a meta tortilla. She's still every bit herself after a small stretch of time away from the divan (but not the internet), and so it's great to have her joining you for the movies.
Honestly, I could never sort out why one of the streaming services didn't do this forever ago. It just makes sense as a format. And, if anything, Elvira is maybe more popular now with people willing to spend money on her than at any time in the past three decades. She genuinely has generations of fans after 40 years. I guess Shudder finally did the math on that.
Still, only four movies! And who knows if Peterson will want to do it again. She sounds very ready to not have to put on the outfit anymore, and I don't blame her. So, maybe she'll go animated, try again to find a replacement, or figure something else out. Whatever she wants to do, I'm good with it.
In the meantime, get the Shudder App. There's a free week of trial, and you can probably blaze through her show in that time.
I would have been about 14 when The Abyss (1989) hit, and it arrived as a sort of prestige sci-fi film. I remember seeing it in a packed house on a Saturday within the first week or two it was out (with my pals), and it was a*very big deal*.
It became a staple of our rotation, but one you had to make time for. The thing was 2.5 hours long. It felt smart and somewhat relevant. A Cold War story and not so displaced from our own time and technology, an underwater oil platform made sense - especially as run by roughnecks and fairly blue-collar technical crew.
pretty sure that's Aileen Quinn's head photoshopped onto someone else's body
Watched: 08/14/2021
Format: Amazon Watch Party
Viewing: Unknown
Decade: 1980's
Director: John Huston
Little Orphan Annie is a weird property that, frankly, I can't believe hasn't resurfaced in the past decade of "re-imaginings". If you can have Archie Andrews battling supernatural forces, and... the same with Nancy Drew, it seems like a junior, globe-trotting adventurer with a dog and a potentially diverse cast seems like a pretty easy sell for a franchise.
But for people to know that was what the strip was about would mean people read newspapers and therefore comic strips. Instead, most of my generation knows the character from either the 1982 film Annie, or from one of the thousands of local theatre group productions of the musical upon which the movie is based (I've never seen it live).
I hadn't watched The Highlander (1986) in years. It was a movie I saw on VHS as a kid, loved it, and include it's mythology and catch-phrases as part of my Gen-X slang. I mean, it did give us the phrase "there can be only one", which I think has leaked out into the popular consciousness, even if lots of folks don't know where the phrase came from.
But like The Beastmaster, The Highlander was part of the lingua franca of geek culture for Gen-X nerds. It had a not-particularly charismatic lead, Connery chewing schenery, a woman throwing herself at the lead for absolutely no reason (and against all logic), swords, trenchcoats, a crazy-ass villain in the form of Clancy Brown as a mad Cossack, and a soundtrack by mid-80's Queen.
And sparks. So many sparks.
Going in, I knew the movie wouldn't be what I remembered when I was 12, even if the movie was exactly what I remembered from when I was 12. It's.... fine. A little slim in the character department in favor of the plot and exposition departments. And it's also a funny movie because it does feel like it should be the first installment in a series until you think about the plot and realize "nope, this is it." Not that movie didn't generate three sequels and a TV show.
I will never understand the idea behind casting Christopher Lambert as a Scotsman. I will never understand casting Sean Connery as an Egyptian Spaniard. And yet, I support both. It's absurd. And somehow just part of the fabric of the movie.
I do like how the movie merges present with flashbacks to tell the story - this was not particularly common to sci-fi or fantasy at the time, and trying to imagine someone explaining all of this in realtime in the present would have been deadly. Clancy Brown makes a hell of an impression as a badguy who has flipped his lid - maybe not new to cop thrillers by 1986, but new to fantasy. And the bit with the girl MacCloud saved during WWII who is still with him is a brilliant little touch, even if she should have been introduced earlier and their relationship clarified. I mean, there's a whole movie in that somewhere.
But it's also not something I think anyone should take particularly seriously. Connery sets the right tone - this is crazy, and we should enjoy it. The ending is telegraphed nonsense, but still fun.
Now we'd be treated to someone's plans for a franchise, with massive world building and a wide array of characters. Here, we get... four Immortals in the modern era? And no women at that? (So 1980's). So I do appreciate that it's both semi-thoughtful, but smart enough to just tell the story and get out.
I would guess more Gen-X'ers know My Dinner With Andre (1981) by reputation than have actually seen the film, by a country mile. Held up as the epitome of intellectualism in film by the time I hit film school in the mid-90's, I remember an art teacher in fifth grade (circa 1985) telling us about the movie, the same guy who also showed us Talking Heads videos, including what I think was Stop Making Sense.*
As much of a reputation as the movie earned, it also became a sort of cultural shibboleth and punchline. In the era of "Woody Allen is an intellectual genius" and last days of New York as the cultural epicenter for America (arguably shifting to LA by the late 1980's), the idea that a film would take on such heady topics as the nature of performance and theater, and, in fact, consciousness with a bent that's new-agey post-hippie "awareness" dressed up in tweed and fine dining was like pushing every button for the culture, especially in outposts outside of New York that longed to see themselves embroiled in such conversations. Of course it played well to both the audience it portrayed and the audience of art-majors and film critics across the country. That's not a dig - I'm just not surprised.
SimonUK and Ryan are back (in time) to discuss a cult classic of 1980's horror sci-fi. It's time-travel, zombiefication, cults, iffy future governing structures and the promise of everyone in Los Angeles getting an ocean view. So join us as we do some detective work on not just the film, but that it survives with a cult audience all these years later!
In 1987 or 1988, when this movie *should* have been aimed directly at me, I saw the trailer for Dead Heat (1988) and took a hard pass. I never cared much for Joe Piscopo, and I can say I had no idea who Treat Williams was in 1988. So, alive or dead, I didn't really care to see a buddy-cop comedy starring these two.
Mostly, I'd totally forgotten this movie existed until about two years ago when Simon suggested I watch it. But I did remember it. Joe Piscopo. Cops. One of them was dead. Probably Piscopo.
So, last night was the first time in a year or so Simon has been to our house for a movie night (hooray, vaccines!). Si brought an assortment of films, but I decided finally watching this movie was a thing we should do.
Look, Simon really, really likes this movie and was generous enough to share it with me. And I will say this - it does have a bonkers final 20 minutes. I liked the last 20 minutes.
It is directed by the same guy who directed the 1989 Punisher movie that me and like 20 other people have ever seen. But apparently he's an amazing editor. Terminator 2 and other credits. But, man, it just *feels* like a Corman movie as much or more than anything else that came out of New World Pictures in the late 80's.
Anyway, Simon really likes this movie, and there's no reason for us to take a knock at it.
Dead or alive, you're listening to this PodCast! JAL and Ryan stay out of trouble and talk a 1980's sci-fi action drama satire that's way the hell better than it should be. We look at the movie that may have had way more about to say about our present day back in 1987 than near any other sci-fi of the last 50 years. Join us as talk what we love about a movie about a guy we call "Robo".
I always like me some Trek, but the last time I watched this movie was in 1989, and it was the last time I saw it for a reason.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is a weird mess of a film, with no coherent plot or threat, or goal. Coming off the Star Trek II - IV trilogy, which had run the gamut from revenge-driven space battle to whale wrangling comedy, coming up with what was next for our crew as they now had The Next Generation nipping at their heels was going to be a tall order. And, over and over again, the movie just fails to deliver as an adventure, a sci-fi premise, a philosophical exploration or a comedy.
Ridiculous, mean-spirited and a lot of fun - what else can you want from a 1980's pop black comedy made on the edge of the Hollywood studio system? It's also a fascinating time capsule of the long-gone sub-cultures of the 1980's - the Boomer's own fascination with pop-nostalgia and the fetishization of everything from the 50's and early 60's in everything from media to decor to glassware.
But also the fascination with the oddities of conformity often at odds with the excesses of the 70's and into the 1980's.
Writer/ Director Paul Bartel plays one half of a husband and wife team - the other half played by former Warhol-girl Mary Woronov. If I had to explain what the two are playing to a Millennial or Gen-Z'er, it'd be a little difficult to get the full context across, but they're weirdly like two drones from a 1950's sitcom in a sexless marriage sleeping in separate beds - and totally happy-ish. If only they could raise the money they need for their restaurant.
Unfortunately, Paul and Mary live in an apartment building that is also filled with swingers parties, which they see as perverse and beyond the pale - but where else could they move with so little money?
One night fate deals them a hand in the form of a swinger's party guest who Paul kills (somewhat nonchalantly) with a cast iron pan when the guest tries to force himself on Mary. Pocketing the man's money and easily disposing of the body, and inspired by a dominatrix who was at the swinger's party they realize - hey, this could be a business. And place an ad as a honeytrap so they can knock off "degenerates" and take their money. Soon, the titular Raoul is involved and assisting in removing the bodies.
Anyway - it's all pretty nuts, and sold completely through Paul and Mary's even-keeled deadpan delivery. Of course everyone along the way is, in contrast, not matching their energy and LA over-the-top, and it makes for phenomenal intentional camp.
It's some seriously dark comedy, and the tone is not going to sit well with everyone. There's also constant and unremarked upon threat of sexual assault to Mary. And, of course, sociopathic murder every few minutes. So, just be aware of what you're getting into.
The movie has cameos by Buck Henry, Edie McClurg and Ed Begley Jr. But, it also stars Robert Beltran as Raoul before he'd go on to play Chakotay on Star Trek Voyager.
btw - I was actually familiar with the Paul and Mary characters from their brief appearance in opening scenes from the Corman-produced goofy "horror" favorite, The Chopping Mall.
