De Palma Watch: Blow Out (1981)

Watched:  11/21/2024

Format:  Criterion 4K

Viewing:  third

Director:  Brian De Palma

De Palma is a fascinating subject himself in so many ways.  He bows at the alter of Hitchcock, he works within frameworks that are uniquely his own - and *boy howdy* are they on display here.  He seems to think the only way to get people to show up for the movie on time is a surplus of nudity before the action begins.  I'm not sure he writes great characters, but he does keep you engaged with plot and ideas.

Here in 2024, I don't know if I like watching his movies because I like a thriller, or if I like watching De Palma do his thing and try to puzzle it out.  Why not both, I guess?

I've started getting 4K discs, and... holy cats, was this a good movie for that.  Shot by Vilmos Zsigmond (check out this IMDB page), and with a healthy dash of De Palma's weirdo split focus (via bioptic lenses) and split screen stuff...  but, the depth of field, the gorgeous lighting, wild camera angles...  

Hallo-Re-Re-Re-Re-Watch: Ghostbusters (1984)

Watched:  10/21/2024

Format:  Alamo

Viewing: hahahahahaha

Director:  Ivan Reitman

Si invited me out to a Ghostbusters Party at The Alamo.  It was a good time!  They gave us a marshmallow, a tub of slime, a glow-in-the-dark thing to wave around for proton beams...  

I also realized I've seen Ghostbusters (1984) more than the average bear when I p-shaw-ed the guy who went up to the front as a "super fan" saying he'd seen the movie twenty times.  I also told the host I'd seen the movie opening day at age 9, and that apparently earned me some street cred.

It was a bit of a quote-along, jam-out to the songs thing, and super fun.  

A few years back, Si, Jamie and I did this as a podcast, so rather than me rehashing the movie in text, you can listen to that.

I guess my only real note is that Sigourney Weaver is a stone cold fox in this movie, and I'm not sure we're supposed to talk about that.

Weaver judges me for bringing it up

HalloWatch: Puppet Master (1989)

Watched:  10/15/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  First

Director:  David Schmoeller

It's important to note the budget for some of these movies.  

Puppet Master (1989) has a reported budget of $400,000.  That's about $1.12 million in 2024 dollars for a whole movie - or, roughly, the cost of bagels on an Avengers movie.  And, people still watch this thing.  So hopefully residuals are still making their way to folks who worked for cheap.

This movie is like someone took a bunch of ideas, threw them in a hat and then pulled them out whilst blind-folded.  And that isn't necessarily a complaint.  It's weird to see so many ideas in one movie, but they do work together.

The rough idea - for some reason a Puppet Master (William Hickey!) is tracked down at a hotel in the 1930's by Nazis?  He kills himself rather than give them the secret of how to imbue puppets with life.  

In the late 1980's, four psychics are summoned to the fancy hotel by a former colleague, Gallagher.  To be honest, I do not know why he summoned them as he then kills himself before they arrive.  One is sort of an everyman psychic, one is a fortune teller who gets glimpses of the future, and two seem to channel sex into their research, which is at least kind of novel.  Meanwhile, Gallagher's widow is hanging about.

There are spirit visions and glimpses of people's deaths yet to come.  A lot of rolling around on a bed.  And nobody seems to have liked Gallagher.  

Soon, the puppets who once were Hickey's pals are running around picking off the psychics.  And each puppet kind of has their thing.

It's probably telling that the stars of this movie mostly don't have many credits.  Hickey is a cameo and our star is really Paul Le Mat, who you'll keep squinting at, trying to remember what you know him from.  I put the movie on because it said it had Barbara Crampton, but she's in it for 30 seconds as a favor to someone, and it managed to sucker me into watching it, so... well done, film producers from 1988 or so.

The puppets are kind of neat.  It's all just... puppetry, but to its credit, it works.  The Pinhead fellow with human hands, Leach Girl, Blade...  just good ideas.  

But there's oddly almost no... feel to the movie.  They have this stunning location of the hotel, but seems like they had a few rooms somewhere, and decided to just light everything like a late 1980's TV show - ie: there are no shadows.  It's sort of weird, visually, in 2024 to see something speaking in TV-language of the era.  

The movie is just weird enough, by virtue of throwing ideas at you left and right, that it's not boring or repetitive.  But it can feel like someone was just writing things down with no clear goal where it was going.  And that's okay.  I just don't think there's anything remotely scary about this movie.  It's more... kind of interesting.  Some really oddball stuff out there winds up drumming up multiple sequels and a fanbase.

I do wonder if this was made because someone say 1987's Dolls, a movie by Stuart Gordon of Re-Animator fame.  Dolls worked for me when I saw it on HBO or something in probably 1989.*  But Dolls was pretty creepy, if memory serves.  

Anyway - it was fine.  One more to check off the list.

*I wound up watching this with a good friend's mom.  I was at his house spending the night, and she'd wandered into the room as the movie started, and my pal fell asleep, and so I wound up watching this goofy movie in a super awkward context, as she was clearly watching it and I didn't know if I could just go to sleep or turn off the TV or what.  She also would go to movies with us and sit by herself so she could see, like, Dirty Harry: The Dead Pool.

HalloWatch: Night of the Demons (1988)

Watched:  10/15/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Kevin Tenney

This is usually the kind of movie I take in after Jamie's gone to bed, but she was, like "whatever you want to watch, man", and... ha ha.  

An intentionally trashy horror flick, I think they spent more time worrying about the opening animation than they did the content of the actual movie.  It's... fine?  It's just very in love with not being good, but isn't quite trashy enough to be as entertaining in that regard as it imagines.  It also becomes critic proof if you keep saying "it's supposed to be bad!  It's supposed to be trashy!"  

And yet.  

No, really, the movie is in on it's own joke of just being what it is.  I'm not sure if that's enough for me in 2024 at age 49, but I also know that was not the intention in 1988 when they were essentially making a party movie for teens and 20-somethings.  I just don't think there's enough here and don't quite get why the movie seems to be a thing (which is why I watched it).  

It had about four good things in a 90 minute movie, and that's not nothing!  But I also couldn't tell if some of the acting was just bad or a brilliant portrayal of bad acting.  That only Linnea Quigley really kept working after this for any length of time may be the tell.  That said - I liked Amelia Kinkade in a horro-movie Patricia Morrison kind of way.*  

It's just a very thin movie, and that's okay, but won't go down as the great discovery of 2024 for me.  This is several years after Evil Dead 1 and 2 at this point, and I think this movie could have been a lot more fun.  And given literally anyone a motivation.

*Kinkade went on to be a sort of animal psychic, and I salute anyone who makes a living chilling with animals, from zooloogist to psychic

Late-80's Hallo-Watch: Pumpkinhead (1988)

Watched:  10/13/2024

Format:  Amazon 

Viewing:  First

Director:  Stan Winston

I wasn't expecting Pumpkinhead (1988) to be good.  

Yet, I'd always meant to watch this movie.  I remember being 13 and the ad came on for "Pumpkinhead" and my brother and I looked at each other and laughed and laughed and laughed.  To this day, it sounds like naming a horror movie "Taters n' Gravy" to me.*

Pumpkinhead  looks good, but for Stan Winston's directorial debut, it's an awkward, tedious slog through flat characters and half-cooked ideas.  It's an 84 minute movie that has you looking at your watch and wondering when all of these people will be dispatched by the creature so you can finish the film.

The basic plot:  Lance Henriksen plays a guy in what I guess is maybe Appalachia? but is clearly the ranches outside of LA.  Some 20-somethings planning a weekend of riding dirtbikes(?) stop off at a fruit stand(?) and then go riding.  There's an accident and Henriksen's kid is killed by one of the bikers who jumps right into him.  

The guy who does the killing makes his group of 6 take-off where they have a sort of confrontation, and Jeff East - the guy who played young Clark Kent in Superman: The Movie! - and he squabble because the guy seems like he's going to kill everyone here to cover up the fact he killed the kid...  So the group more or less splinters.

Henriksen makes contact with a witch-type lady who has him bring forth Pumpkinhead, so he can get revenge.  And revenge it gets, generically picking people off, while the real idea is to slowly reveal more and more of the suit Stan Winston's team made, that is, in fact, pretty good.  By the last 1/5th of the film, we're seeing the suit in full glory, and it looks neat!

By this point, Jeff East and his girlfriend are obviously going to make it, and we've come to understand the cost of raising a Pumpkinhead is that you and it will be sort of symbiotic when it's convenient to the scene.

I don't know.  It's a slog and I didn't care for it.  But it's also not a movie people love - and yet, several sequels happened.  Stan Winston kept making cool effects but went on to direct A Gnome Named Gnorm, making children everywhere understand that sometimes God abandons you, and the evidence is everything about Gnorm the Gnome.  

*But the lasting legacy of the movie's title in my head is that...  my poor dad was in the room for the commercial at some point, and being shitty kids, we said "hey, that's your new name, Dad!  Pumpkinhead!"  And, lo, that lasted about a year before I became aware that deploying the name "Pumpkinhead" one more time guaranteed a foot connecting with my ass.

Hamilton HalloWatch: Children of the Corn (1984)

Watched:  10/13/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Fritz Kiersh

This movie is boring.  

That's my memory of Children of the Corn (1984) from watching it in high school, and it's how I feel now.  And so I watched it again thinking - hey, I barely remember it and it seems like it should be exciting.  People love this movie!  

It's based on a short story by King - that I never read - and I guess they needed a lot of filler.  It's mostly just Peter Horton and Hamilton wandering around so the characters can see what we already know.  Hamilton existing so Horton can explain what is happening.

That's terrible structure.  There's no suspense - we don't piece things together with the characters.  Instead, we're supposed to feel anxiety that they might get killed, which we know they won't until the last minute, if it's that kind of movie that decides we see the protagonists die at the end (it is not.  That's other folk-horror movies like Wicker Man).

The big twist is that there's a Lovecraftian horror living in the fields of corn, and - to be honest - that feels like a let-down rather than just insane Bible-thumping kids, while also feeling like a Disney Halloween movie gone off the rails.

People love this movie, but I think that's Gen-X Space Jam Fallacy.  As a kid - this is a pretty decent "my first Rated-R movie" horror as it's not exactly shocking, particularly bloody or scary.  But it does contain the idea that you, a powerless kid, could get wrapped up in a scary new dynamic under the Isaac's and Malachi's you know are out there.  As an adult, you can only think "these stupid kids would be dead inside a week when they realized they don't know how to eat on their own, what to do when they're sick, or when the snow comes down and there's no fuel.".

Also - surely someone would notice an entire town of people just stopped showing up.

Which is why Children of the Corn probably works as a short story, but not as a movie that gives you time to think about these things.

What it does have is Linda Hamilton.

the very corniness of this movie may be her undoing

Unfortunately, this is pre-James Cameron Linda Hamilton, so she's playing "lady/ girl" in this movie, and just has "victim/ hostage" written all over her as soon as the story really kicks in.  If I praised M3GAN for not shying away from a woman who is a childless robot-lady, then this movie is the opposite.  Hamilton is basically spending the whole movie convincing her already locked-in doctor boyfriend that he should be *more* her boyfriend.  And when she meets kids, you can hear the warming of her ovaries as she leaps into action being there for potentially murderous children.

Still, we're never mad about Linda Hamilton showing up.

The one line that made my ears perk up was Peter Horton rightfully pointing out that religion isn't bunk, but any religion that's devoid of love is a terrible idea.  Like... deep thoughts in the middle of a pretty silly movie.

Whether I like this movie or not, the legacy of this movie is probably pretty deep.  Us city-folk do not like driving through big empty places with the occasional human dotting the landscape, and this movie does not help (nor does getting stink-eye at the gas station in the middle of nowhere).  But it also maybe helped set the table not just for the ten sequels of this movie, but a lot of "city people are terrified of the country" movies that litter our horror movie landscape.

  

Hallo-Watch: Christine (1983)

Watched:  10/09/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  Third?  Fourth?

Director:  John Carpenter

This spooky season, I'm mostly trying to check off movies I should have already watched - also movies I haven't seen since I was a kid, so I don't remember the films well at all.  This isn't that - but Jamie had not seen Christine (1983), and I kind of consider it worth a viewing.  So it's her version of that, I suppose.

I read the Stephen King novel when I was in 6th grade.  But I didn't see the movie until some time later - maybe when I was fifteen.  I've seen it a couple of times since, including in a hotel room during a  conference over a decade ago.  It's a bizarre movie - how compelling should a movie about a haunted car be?  And yet.

Christine is a John Carpenter movie, and - I think - should be included in consideration of his run of solid work there in the 1980's.  I know Carpenter seems grumpy about all of the movies he did as a work-for-hire director, but the pairing of his sensibilities with King really does work.  I'd love to see someone re-do Christine without having to strip it down for a movie audience and make it as weird as the book, but as a movie - separate from the book but using the core of it - I think this movie works as a kind of horror, just not the horror of "oh no!  A car will get me!" that you might guess on first blush.

To me, the horror of the movie is not so much about a killer, possessed car - which, fair enough (that is a problem!).  Instead, it's about helplessly watching a friend go down due to a change in their life, be it addiction, a toxic partner, or some other obsession.  This is two lifelong pals who went two different directions, and one of them goes off the deep end, and the other has to deal with the fallout as that person hurts other people.  

Hallo-Watch: Re-Animator (1985)

Watched:  10/07/2024

Format:  Midnight Pulp on Amazon

Viewing:  First?

Director:  Stuart Gordon

In my post on From Beyond, I said I'd previously seen Re-Animator (1985), but in watching this - I had not actually seen this movie.  I'm wondering if I inadvertently watched the sequel.  Or not enough of the movie to actually remember it.  We'll find out when I take in the sequel.

This movie is chaotic, gory, fun, and speaks volumes about someone's ability to convince actors to walk around naked.  It's funny, bizarre, and I dug it.

A brilliant young scientist loses his mentor in Switzerland, coming to ye olde Miskatonic Medical School where he moves in with nice-guy med student, Dan, who is sleeping with the dean's daughter (Barbara Crampton, natch).  Herbert, the brilliant fellow, has invented a formula for bringing dead bodies back to life - demonstrating with Dan's pet cat (who, Herbert likely killed himself).  Meanwhile, Dr. Hill (Bob Gale) has made his career by stealing Herbert's mentor's work, and Herbert publicly calls him on it.  

Soon, chaos ensues as they try out Herbert's formula down in the morgue, and then on someone they didn't intend to be a useful body.  

I dunno.  It's like trying to describe a riot in detail.  There's a lot going on.

Everyone gets their assignments.  Jeffrey Combs is great as Herbert, Bob Gale unhinged as Dr. Hill, Robert Sampson all in as Dean Halsey.  Crampton is lively as Megan Halsey.  

This movie is just crazy nonsense for 90 minutes, and I dug it.  I think as a kid this would have spooked the crap out of me.  As a jaded adult, I'm just sorta chuckling to myself about "wow, they're doing this" as Dr. Hill's decapitated body lugs around his head.  

I'm not sure there's a deeper meaning in the film than "whoops... do not reanimate the dead!" which - lesson learned, amigos!  But it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the general tone and can-do-horror spirit of the thing.

The FX aren't as cool as From Beyond, but for something done on a budget, they really knock it out of the park.  Maybe minus the cat puppet, which is just good stuff.

Hallo-Horror Watch: From Beyond (1986)

Watched:  10/05/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First (all the way through)

Director:  Stuart Gordon

Thanks to seeing half of this movie in the mid-1980's, in later years when it came up in classes, I'd already know what the Pineal Gland is.  And, probably, set all sorts of toggles in my head thanks to Barbara Crampton.

There's no era that doesn't have it's own flavors of horror, and 1980's horror is best remembered for Freddy, Jason, etc...  But out there, Stuart Gordon was making stuff like Re-Animator and busily creating wild, weird stuff that was based more on concepts like HP Lovecraft for a modern audience than stalking teenagers.  I wasn't much of a horror kid so much as I was interested in, like, The Wolfman.  And I know I watched this movie for a bit sometime in the 1980's - right up to the hospital sequence, I think - because I don't remember that or the ending.  So I'm calling this my first full viewing.

This is based on Lovecraft's work of the same name, so it's generally about being unsettling, deeply weird and... madness.  Gotta have some madness.

From Beyond (1986) is about a young scientist (Jeffrey Coombs) who is working with a strange but brilliant scientist, Dr. Edward Pretorious (Ted Sorel) - and they manage to basically match the vibrations of our plane with that of one we really shouldn't have ever seen, full of archaic creatures and strange monsters.  Something goes wrong, and the young scientist is accused of murdering Pretorius, but his story of alien creatures killing Pretorius better matches the evidence (a bloodless, decapitated body) than "he got him with an axe".  Psychiatrist Dr. McMichaels (Crampton) is brought in, and wants to see what the guy was up to, so she works with him under police guard (Ken Foree!) to re-do the experiment.

What Gordon thought the effects of the "field" generated by the device were is up to speculation.  For some reason it seems to make the young scientist kind of crazy and his pineal gland grows into a weird, prehensile thing I'm sure is supposed to be phallic.  Crampton's character becomes...  sexy.  And poor Ken Foree just gets bit by a jellyfish.

I shall spoil no further.

The movie is weirdly fun for what it is.  I assume it kind of freaked me out as a kid with its mix of body horror, madness, dash of sex, some S&M for no reason, and no clear heroes in the thing.  But knowing Lovecraft a bit now, this is a reasonable adaptation of his vibe.  The special FX, make-up, etc... are all very good, minus a shot or two.  So if you dig old school practical and optical FX, this is a good one.  And the ideas of the film are appropriately chilling, with an ending that feels right.

Anyway - it was kind of great to see this as an adult and with more of film, literary and life experience under my belt.   

Hallowatch: The 'Burbs (1989)

Watched:  09/29/2024

Format:  YouTube (it's streaming free.  Go figure)

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Joe Dante

Selection:  Jamie

I saw this one in the theater back in the day, and then on VHS and cable after.  But it's been some time since I watched this movie.  And while I liked the movie, boy - does it land now in a different way after living on the same suburban street since 2006.  

My memory was correct that this movie was poorly received upon its release, and it's funny - I think it would do fairly well now with reviewers no longer cloistered in urban centers and insisting on certain lifestyles which would, frankly, make them miss the joke of the movie except as a faint echo of their streets as kids.  Criticism and reviews play an important role, but I think this is just one where the vibe of how the curators of public opinion missed the mark, and it's not a mistake the movie is well-remembered 35 years later.

The film isn't quite a horror film, it is a comedy - and the whole thing feels very Joe Dante.  There's a hyper-realism to the the suburban setting that keeps the movie with one foot firmly planted in realism (the world Carrie Fisher is trying to anchor) while nuttiness abounds.  And Tom Hanks is our POV into what it is to move back and forth between those worlds.

Hallowatch: The Midnight Hour (1985)

Watched:  09/29/2024

Format:  YouTube

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jack Bender

SimonUK has already delved into Halloween movies, and having had already seen everything over the years, he found an ABC TV movie from 1985.  That, in the spirit of 1980's, apparently originally aired the day after Halloween at the height of Reaganism (I did not like how TV was run in the 1980's).  

If I ever know The Midnight Hour (1985) existed - and it is likely that in 1985, I absolutely did not as I was watching mostly Mr. Ed and GI Joe - I have since forgotten it.  And I am pretty sure I would have remembered this.  

The basic idea is one that pops up from time-to-time, it's Halloween and someone unleashes dark magic along the way, meaning - in this movie - zombies, werewolves, vampires, etc...  appear in a Massachusetts town.  And, they sort of take over and turn folks into monsters along the way.  Minus one guy who looks a lot like John Hughes, but isn't him.

The movie has a weird clutch of actors you know or say "really?" about.  Kevin McCarthy and Dick Van Patten each show up for a few scenes as parents.  Levar Burton plays the 1980's staple of the guy who thinks "tonight, me and my lady will finally do it".  The lady is played by Shari Belafonte (daughter of Harry) is pretty good as his ladyfriend whose family is tied to witchcraft in the town going back 200 years.  Jonelle Allen, TV staple, plays her ancestor.  Peter Deluise is in it in a thankless role.  Kurtwood Smith gets two scenes as the town cop.  Cindy Morgan (RIP) plays the teacher who is... sleeping with Peter Deluise and shows off publicly?  The 1980's were wild.  This is a TV movie!

And Wolfman Jack, who never saw a gig he couldn't cash in on, is the DJ on the ever present local radio.  And, btw, the soundtrack on this is surprisingly solid, including Shari Belafonte trying to create a Halloween single called "Get Dead".  But otherwise, oldies hits popular in the 1980's.

The movie is *fun* rather than scary and has a storyline where I'm pretty sure our John Hughes stand-in/ hero bangs a ghost who looks like Betty Cooper.  Again, the 1980's were a different time.

What's curious is how much money it looks like this thing cost.  TV movies used to be fairly expensive affairs, and this is no exception.  It also is basically no better or worse than 80% of the movies people remember fondly from the 1980's, but for some reason, this thing has terrible reviews.  Probably because of the dance sequence and lack of visible boobs.  

It's fine.  I liked the light tone and the wistful approach taken to the romance storyline.  And that, basically, the townsfolk lose right up to the end, without even really knowing what's going on.  Also, it's free on YouTube and does nail the Halloween vibe.  A little spooky, a little horror-ish, a little silly, a little sexy... it's all in there.  Maybe not amazing, but it works.

Hamilton/ Ape Watch: King Kong Lives (1986)

Watched:  09/20/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing;  4th?

Director:  John Guillermin/ Charles McCracken

After watching Dante's Peak, I was wanting to see another Linda Hamilton film and talked Dug and K into watching King Kong Lives (1986), a move I am certain they regret.  

As a sort of low-level monster-kid of the 1980's, I was thrilled to get a chance to see a *new* King Kong movie, and so went to see the flick in the theater.  I loved the *idea* of King Kong, but had only seen pieces of the 1976 movie and none of the original.  But read a Kong book to two and had the basic idea down.  

And, this movie was part of my realization that not all movies are good.  Like, you go to the movies as a kid, and if you can follow the plot, it feels like a winner.*  But around this time, I was starting to understand not every movie is "good" or was made because it was a work of art.  And, right about the time I saw Kong and Lady Kong making goo-goo eyes at each other, I began realizing this movie was not destined to be the classic its predecessors had been.

JLC Watch: A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

Watched:  09/19/2024

Format:  AFS Cinema

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Charles Crichton

Simon and I decided to catch this one again at the cinema.  

I've always liked A Fish Called Wanda (1988), and while some items in the film aged poorly, it's still a very, very good comedy with some screwball bits that just kill.  I don't know how objective I am about the film as I saw it so young and, at the time, felt like I was watching something aimed, for once, at adults rather than an all-ages comedy, like I was used to.  I mean, this isn't far removed, chronologically, from the early Police Academy franchise, which is what an R-Rated comedy looked like in the US that I had previously been watching.

Yet, the film is intensely silly.  Everyone is firing on all cylinders, enough so that you can't single out anyone in the film, just your favorite bits or scenes.  The entire sequence in which Wanda sneaks into Archie's house to seduce him is *gold* and should be studied by academics. But it's not aimed at 13 year-olds.  The comedy comes from a different place that knows goofy, witty, sexy and fun without resorting to feeling like "insert funny sad trombone sound here" is appropriate.

Si and I saw the movie in a shockingly full theater for an 8:30 PM Thursday showing of a movie you can stream from your phone right now.  It was a mix of clear die-hards for the movie and people who'd never seen it, I'm guessing, from the gasps and laughing at surprise bits in the film.  And, all ages.  20-something hipsters and Grandmas who likely have seen it 25 times.

Was JLC a big reason why I came out to the theater for the movie?  You know that's the case.  But I had never seen the movie on the big screen, and or with a crowd, and it was a delight to do so.

Here's the Podcast from years ago when Jamie, Si and I talked about the film.

Coppola Watch: The Outsiders (1983) - the full novel cut

Watched:  09/16/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Francis Ford Coppola

Selection:  Jamie

I've been meaning to see this movie *since* 1983.  But over time, I'd heard mixed things and I came to know what the story was, anyway, via cultural osmosis.  My one memory from when it hit cable in the mid-1980's was being told "you wouldn't like it" - and I genuinely don't know why I was told that at the time, probably aged 9 or 10.

When I was 11, the kid across the street came over while me and some others were sitting around in my front yard and asked us to "rumble".  I now assume they'd just seen this movie and were inspired.  We did not rumble.  We did ask them what movie they pulled "rumble" from.*  I think I now have the answer.

The movie is now mostly famous as the movie that launched careers.  All of the leads went on to become staples and household names for the generation that came up on the movie - it's sort of ground zero for a few brat packers.  Patrick Swayze, Tom Cruise, Emilio Estevez, Ralph Macchio, Matt Dillon, Rob Lowe, Diane Lane - and starring C. Thomas Howell as Ponyboy.  For those of us so-inclined, it also has an appearance by Michelle Meyrink.**  Sophia Coppola shows up for literally 30 seconds.

Animation Watch: Fire & Ice (1983)

Watched:  08/18/2024

Format:  BluRay from Austin Public

Viewing:  First

Director:  Ralph Bakshi

This was the weekend for watching movies I considered viewing during COVID lockdown but never got to.  Certainly Gymkata was part of that, but I'd also bookmarked the 1983 animated adventure film Fire & Ice.  

Ralph Bakshi is a figure that I think those in the know were still discussing in the 1990's, but I'm not sure anyone under 40 in 2024 is really aware of Bakshi, his work or what should have been his legacy.  I'll leave you to Google the man, but he burst out of the counter-culture scene, partnering with R. Crumb and making animated features that were decidedly not all-ages.  His films were famously oversexed, and in the US, our relationship with sexualization battles between raw objectification, cartoonish piety, artistic vision and feminist criticism - leaving Bakshi an unapologetic provocateur.

But he also was trying to make art.  And as such, pushed boundaries and envelopes.  His work used familiar imagery, just off kilter enough to look like part of what you may see in other, more sanitized and popular work, but maybe what was happening in other parts of Toon Town where Mickey would never go.  But his interests also strayed into what one could do with music and image (as all animators get to), and an interest in what animation had the potential to do that live action was not capable of for high fantasy.

Gymkata Watch: Gymkata (1985)

Watched:  08/17/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Robert Clouse

I genuinely don't know what led to making this movie.  I have so many questions.

I first saw Gymkata (1985) on basic cable in the mid-90's, I believe as part of USA's "Up All Night" block of programming.*  Aside from the basic plot, one amazing action scene and one specific twist (you could see coming a mile away), my memory of the movie was mush.

It's a movie about a gymnast recruited by the CIA to go into a country on the edge of the Eastern Bloc and secure the friendship of their king by winning "The Game".  "The Game" is a foot race across the small country during which the unarmed participants are pursued by soldiers on horseback with swords and bows and arrows.  You also have to pass through a city full of deranged people who I think are all cannibals?  

The country is apparently one big RenFest, with no motor vehicles and everyone dressed in a mix of what looks like regional and period outfits.  They ride horses.  There are guys dressed like ninjas who suck at everything.  There's maybe 3 guns in the whole movie.  Our heavy looks like the guys I remember seeing handling snakes at the zoo when I was a kid.

Why a gymnast?  Well, because climbing and hopping.  He also learns to turn his skills into fighting skills, provided a piece of gymnastics equipment is nearby.  Or baddies want to stand still while he does a floor routine.

There's a girl.  She's super cute and the actor they found who was shorter than Thomas, who was 5'5".**  The best line of dialog in the whole film is about her:

"Interesting background.  Her mother was Indonesian."  

And you can wait as long as you want, but there will be no more information about what that's interesting.  So, congrats, all of Indonesia!  You are interesting.

Watching the movie in 2024, I can hazard guesses as to how Gymkata came to be.  It seems it was produced and distributed by MGM/UA, which is utterly mind-boggling.  It's a low-budget martial-arts movie filmed in Europe somewhere, and the biggest star is not an actor, but Olympian and gymnast Kurt Thomas, who briefly enjoyed fame in the mid-80's after winning gold in 1976 (the US did not compete in the 1980 Olympics in the USSR).  He just was kinda-famous for a bit. And in the glut of cheapo action films, novelty and a name were a solid combo.

Thomas did not act, really, before, after or (arguably) during Gymkata, but someone decided he should star and didn't fire him - which probably says something about either the cocaine consumed or the certainty no one cared.

Director Robert Clouse made his mark as the supposed director of Enter the Dragon, but I think we all know that was really Bruce Lee, right?  By the 1980's, he was doing this sort of thing and would be the eye behind the China O'Brien films, which I liked then and would purchase now.***

The movie is more or less fifteen minutes of set up and then what feels like following Thomas in real time across what looks like a really nice place to be - which IMDB tells me is Yuogslavia - which is super weird in 1984 or whenever they filmed this.  

Anyway - I can't recommend this enough.  It is absolute nonsense of the highest order.

*Rhonda Shear!  Simply the best pal for late night movie watching

**Thomas passed in 2020

***But they aren't good, just so you know.  I just liked them in the 1990s.

1980's Watch: Starman (1984)

Watched:  07/24/2024

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  First

Director:  John Carpenter

I'd not previously seen Starman (1984).  When I was a kid, I think my folks decided it would have hanky-panky in it when it started and we didn't make it past literally the first scene.  There was a briefly lived TV show based on the movie starring Robert Hays of Airplane! fame, and I caught that a few times.

When I was renting movies on my own, I just tagged it as "romance E.T." and took a pass.  

Anyway, here in 2024, Simon suggested we pay tribute to John Carpenter, who wrote and directed the film, so - with Jamie included, we took in a screening.

I don't take it as a knock that Starman is pretty much exactly what I expected out of the premise as I understood it from 40 years of occasionally stumbling across discussion of the movie, but if you watched 1980's media, it's pretty much what you'd expecting, and that's "romance E.T."  

So if that's true, we have to ponder the execution - and that's where I think the movie does okay.  

Karen Allen plays a Wisconsinite who has been recently widowed when her husband died suddenly in an accident.  Aliens from a distant planet have intercepted Voyager 2, and taken the messages of welcome at their word, sending a craft to Earth.

The ship crashes near Karen Allen's home, and an alien enters, taking on the form of her deceased husband.  The alien forces Allen into taking him to Arizona, where he is set to rendezvous with his people in a few days.  

Along the way, she sees he's benevolent and an okay alien.  But they're pursued by a military detail supported by Charles Martin Smith.  

As I say, all of this is pretty boilerplate stuff.  So what's asked of the film is that the actors - who mostly are just two people acting together in cars, motels, diners, etc...  sell the relationship which starts at uncanny terror and evolves into romance in a short time.  The vibe is a sort of romantic poem wherein an outsider sees us for what we are, and falls for an Earth woman and an Earth woman has reason to fall for an awkward alien wearing her dead husband's face.

And, for the most part, I think the movie works because of those performances.  Jeff Bridges earned an academy award nod for the part, to which he brings a charm and warmth instead of a hammy performance that would have turned this into slapstick or schlock.  Karen Allen gets the most screentime and dialog of any picture in which I've seen her, and she's really, really good.  There's so many things to play, both as an avatar for the audience dealing with an actual alien, and as a character who is still dealing with grief and trauma who now has this experience, and I can't think of how you improve on what she did.  

The movie kind of works on those performances, vibes and the occasional bit of wonder in acts performed by the alien.  

Anyway, yeah.  Like I say, in 2024 and having seen many movies, I don't know that the plot held many surprises, but as a movie it still works.  And would be a swell date movie some time.  

By the way spoiler here - but the alien doesn't just magically become Jeff Bridges as a full adult.  There's a pretty remarkable FX sequence that was made by a combo of work by Dick Smith, Rick Baker and Stan Winston - all on one brief sequence.  But it also is the only time I've seen a movie - where there's a clone or copy of someone - start as a baby, which, to me, is the logical thing to happen.  I'll accept it doesn't usually, but was impressed that's what they did.

Baseball Watch: Eight Men Out (1988)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  Second or Third

Director:  John Sayles

I haven't seen a ton of John Sayles, but if you want to see me get excited, let's talk Matewan or Lonestar sometime.  Sayles has become sidelined in the movie conversation.  If folks like Coppola, Lynch and Cronenberg are having a hard time out there, you can only guess how it's going for a guy who has always had a hard time convincing exhibitors that people will like his movies when he was at the top of his game.  Sayles' general lack of huge Hollywood success is partially why I think we can safely ignore awards/ box-office and just enjoy a movie.

I remember watching Eight Men Out (1988) the first time back in college, well before I was watching baseball, and eventually kind of fell in love with the sport (I'm currently watching the Cubs try to lose to the Brewers here in the 9th - whoops.  Yup.  They lost.).  But movies were a huge part of how I developed an interest in baseball to begin with.  

1984 Watch: The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984)

Watched:  07/21/2024

Format:  Alamo 

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  W.D. Richter

We've already seen and discussed The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984) a few times before.  

I saw it was showing at the Alamo as part of their 1984 ReWind series, and since I hadn't seen it in a theater since 1984, I figured it was probably fair to see it again on the big screen.  

Maybe the highlight of the film on this go-round was that, upon exiting, Jamie - who I thought was lukewarm on the movie - said "it just gets better every time you see it!" which is my firm-held belief.  It really is one of those movies that drops a million little things along the way, and every time one shows up - whether it's a watermelon in a press or Yakov Smirnoff as a Presidential Advisor or bubble-wrap eye protection - it's a reminder that someone pretty f'ing clever put this movie together.  

Anyway, here's to another viewing of a favorite from my youth.  40 years!  Where does the time go?  

The crowd, by the way, was a mix of aging nerds and somewhat younger nerds with kids in tow.  I can only imagine the car-rides home.

Richard Simmons Merges With The Infinite

Richard Simmons has passed at the age of 76.

He was one of the first people I remember recognizing on TV, and knowing their name as a real person and not a character.  The Richard Simmons Show encouraged clean living, healthy lifestyles and sensible eating.  I don't remember much more than it existed and was something I'd see on TV in the summer.

Once the show was over in about 1985, Simmons was just sort of omnipresent on television through, like, my 30's.  I remember tears from people talking about their struggles with weightloss, and Simmons, in workout duds, holding their hand and listening, absolutely sincerely.  Sure, at first you'd laugh like a snarky kid, but eventually, you had to say to yourself "this guy does this all the time.  He never breaks.  He maintains eye contact.  He listens and tries to help."  Like, you realizes he might be goofy in some ways, but at least that part was real.

He was also on celebrity gameshows, did guest appearances, was a late night TV staple, and sold millions and millions of VHS tapes to folks who didn't want to start working out at the gym or a Jazzercise class, they wanted to try it at home.  

In 1992-93, my high school drama class agreed to do "Sweatin' to the Oldies" once a week, as my drama instructor rightfully noticed, we were not the most active kids.  At the time it was the most notorious of Simmons' offerings, constantly advertised during daytime TV, playing music from the 60's as an army of, indeed, very sweaty people danced behind Richard in the background.  So, initially it was ironic.  But we all agreed - there was something to the videos.  Just enough to get you moving, but it wasn't like the Jane Fonda tapes that were a strenuous workout.  After that, I felt like I got his niche and what he was doing - providing a realistic lifeline for people to at least try to get moving, and make it fun.

Simmons retreated from public life around a decade ago, and after a lifetime of public engagement, eventually speculation about what he was up to begin to swirl.  But almost all allegations were denied or dismissed.  

I suspect we'll likely learn much more about Simmons' private life now that he's passed.

I don't know how much Simmons will be remembered by folks younger than myself.  He did have an online presence, but was fading for a decade before he officially disappeared.  And I don't know how many people will come forward with remembrances.  

Say what you will, and, yes, he made a lot of money selling tapes to people who probably watched them once, but he did offer some help and some hope, and he can't be at your house to get you to use your Deal-a-Meal cards, or find the 30 minutes for a workout.  I think he was probably an okay dude.

 I do still wonder if he owned any long pants.