So, usually we announce an Amazon Watch Party well in advance, but when I wrapped work on Friday at 5:00, Jamie said "are we doing a Watch Party?" which roughly translates to "I know you hadn't planned a Watch Party, but we're doing one" so, as I generally DNGAF, I was like "yeah, fine."
After some looking, we landed on Sheena (1984), because if I was getting roped into a movie party, Tanya Roberts. I think maybe I'd seen Sheena in middle-school, because I vaguely remembered bits. And I was, even then, vaguely aware of Sheena as an old-school pulp/ comics character. In fact, she debuted in 1938 - which is 3 years before Wondy. I also remembered what I considered to be "too many flamingoes". And, boy howdy, was that memory right.
Of course in the era of Blockbuster and other video shops, Tanya Roberts looked back at you from the cover of many-a-sun-bleached box covers.
Firestarter (1984) is a 90 minute movie that the studio inexplicably decided needed to be 2 full hours. A taut 90 minutes would have not given me time to ponder "why is this happening? Why is anyone doing what it is they are doing? Why would anyone be this dumb?"
But the movie is 120 minutes, and so I did think these things.
I don't blame director Mark L. Lester, who brought us Commando and Bobbi Jo and the Outlaw, because I think he did some stuff in this movie very well, but there's just too much movie here, which is an editing problem. And, he didn't write the script. I also don't blame Tangerine Dream, who provided the score and who are not at their best here.
I don't blame Drew Barrymore, who is a child in this movie. Nor do I blame Martin Sheen or George C. Scott, Louise Fletcher or Art Carney. I might be blaming everyone else. This movie is boring and makes no sense, and for a movie that's 120 minutes so they can explain stuff but that just keeps making things worse, that's a feat.
Viewing: Unknown. Probably third all the way through
Director: Brian De Palma
It's very hard to say "I love Dressed to Kill (1980)" with a straight face, but I do think De Palma's pivot to a more explicit eroticism from the staid suggestion of such in the Hitchockian thriller is worth at least looking at. At this point in his career, De Palma's movies read a lot like film school theory classes come to life, but I can't really remember our courses ever highlighting De Palma. Maybe he's too on the nose with some of this stuff. Maybe he wasn't "classic" enough.
But, yeah, what Hitch only hinted at, De Palma is pleased to put up on screen. Your mileage may vary was to whether this works for you, but in an era where cinema was where adults went for entertainment, and with De Palma dealing neither with the Hayes Code nor Hitch's pre-War sense of decorum, just be aware the film is frank about illicit sex and sexual kinks, and there's no shortage of female nudity (that's an Angie Dickinson body double in those key shots there at the opening, btw).
I don't know what the opposite is of "catching lightning in a bottle", but Who's That Girl? (1987) is here to make me wonder what that might be, or if we're in need of a new phrase.
Look. If you were a straight dude coming of age in the 1980's, you might not have talked about it, but chances are you spent a lot of time thinking about Madonna. Not as part of the cultural discourse that somehow always placed Madonna in the middle of the po-discourse Venn Diagram and which was mostly nonsense, but for other reasons. There's twenty seconds of video here which will help you understand.
So, yes. Madonna. By 1987 she was a marketing and musical force who decided to dabble in acting. Warner Bros., who was in the Madonna business and made both music and movies, said "sure, whatever". Madonna somehow landed on a script about a girl getting out of prison who has to prove she's innocent, and decided this would be the movie she'd make.
If catching lightning in a bottle is an unique combination of factors that come together and create a very special film, this is a mix of predictable hackery paired with an unprepared celebrity who doesn't know the difference between fame and talent needed to pull off a project.
It's Roger Moore in a beard and playing with cats and fighting villains! What's not to like? SimonUK and Ryan get on board to bear witness as Anthony Perkins decides to make some quick cash by entering the petroleum industry! It's all hands on deck as James Mason and many other familiar faces mix it up in a high stakes chess match that no one in the US ever managed to watch!
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!
