For old-skool Austinites, I saw this movie in the theater in 1984 at Northcross Mall. That summer my dad was living in Austin and the family in Spring, TX as we worked to move everyone to Austin for my father's new job. My thinking is that on one of our many trips to Austin to see The Admiral and check out the town and where we'd live, my folks took the evening and took me (9) and my brother (11) to see this movie.
Mostly I remember thinking the bits with Kermit in disguise as Hollywood and Broadway types were hysterical. I recognized a good number of the cameos at that point (Dabney Coleman, Brooke Shields, Linda Lavin, etc...) and it was good to see my old muppety pals again on screen.
That year I also picked up the official Marvel Comics adaptation, but it was released as a few issues, and I didn't get one of them. Still, they used exact dialog from scenes, went very cartoony, and so I know some very specific dialog from this movie from re-reading those comics over and over (the Penguins yelling "well, excuuuuuse me!", for example).
Yippee ki-yay, y'all! It ain't Christmas til Nakatomi tower is smoldering, paper and glass are everywhere, several Europeans and a coke head are dead, Al has eaten a Twinkie and one Bonnie Bedelia has recognized her husband's handiwork. Yup, it's the one I've personally been refusing to do for years, paired with the (sigh) sequel.
Marshall delivers a visitation upon the podcast to impart the lesson he knew in life - everyone likes Bill Murray as Frank Cross. Join he and Ryan as they talk an 80's Christmas favorite, one of the best retellings of Dicken's immortal classic, and much is made of television then and now. It's a Christmas favorite here at Signal Watch HQ, and we're delighted to get to talk on it.
This may be a misperception, but it often seems to me that people discuss and possibly remember Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987) differently from what the movie actually is (to me). The film definitely has some large and broad comedic moments, but it's not really a slapsticky comedy. And for long stretches, it's not actually funny.
I wouldn't say I don't like it, but it's also not a movie I rush into rewatching - as evidenced by the fact that Jamie and I have been married 21 years and tonight she mentioned she'd never seen this film. So, we put it on.
John Hughes wrote, directed and produced the film and it was part of his move away from the Ringwald teen movies and his move to not just be known as a director of those famous films. What's curious is how odd it feels seeing the same flow of his teen comedies, that move from comedy to more serious beats in the third act where lessons are sincerely learned, is applied here as well. And it works - I'm not saying it doesn't, but I think when I hear people discuss this movie, they always just laugh and say "those aren't pillows!", which, honestly is a gag that aged kinda badly and is nowhere near the funniest part of the movie (that's the car bursting into flames as they sit on the trunk on the side of the road).
SimonUK and Ryan see what all the buzz is about as they check out the sequel to the famous Cronenberg remake. This time, it's a wee baby insect man and Daphne Zuniga against the world and spooky corporate interests! Join us as we take a swat at a film that was one I think everyone saw on cable.
Further back, the Ray Bradbury book upon which the film is based was assigned reading for me in 7th grade. I cannot imagine such a thing in schools now, but this was the go-go 1980's, and we were even given assignments to come up with a short story about how Mr. Dark would prey upon our insecurities. I vaguely remember something about being turned into what I realize now is the Incredible Hulk.
Special thanks to Stuart, who belongs to Disney Insiders and landed me a copy of this club-only release of Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983) BluRay. Lovely presentation.
Anyway, this is such a strange little movie, one that I don't recall getting any promotion at the time of its release, nor had I seen it on the shelf at the video store. Possibly, because of the Disney label on the tape, it had been shelved with kiddie movies. Which is an interesting problem, because it's not one the book has. It just gets shelved with Ray Bradbury books. But as a film...
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.
