Category Archives: 80’s Movies

The Chocolate War (1988)

Posted on January 29, 2025 | Leave a comment

chocolate

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Teen challenges the hierarchy.

Jerry (Ilan Mitchell-Smith) is the new student at an all-boys Catholic School that finds himself insnared into a controversy that wasn’t of his making. Brother Leon (John Glover), the school’s headmaster, promotes a program in which all the students must sell a certain allotment of chocolates in order to bring in much needed revenue for the school. While it’s technically voluntary the students are strongly pressured to take part in it and all of them do except for Jerry who for ten days refuses to get involved. This it turns out was the result of a hazing ritual brought on by a secret fraternity of students known as The Vigils. The idea was for Jerry to prove himself as being mentally strong enough to join the group by standing up to the intimidating Leon. Leon though becomes aware of what’s going on and since he’s in close contact with Archie (Wally Langham), the Vigil’s leader, he forgives the action convinced that once the 10-days are up Jerry will conform like all the others and take part in the sales drive. However, to everyone’s shock this doesn’t happen. Instead, Jerry continues to rebel, and his nonconformity has an infectious quality causing other students to take part, which challenges the strength of the school’s hierarchy to keep everyone in line. 

The film is based on the 1974 novel of the same name by Robert Cormier, which many critics have deemed one of the best young adult novels every written, but also one that routinely shows up as being on the top 10 list of banned or challenged books in high school libraries. It marks the directorial debut of Keith Gordon, who up until this time was better known for his acting particularly his starring role in the horror classic Christine. As a director I think he does a splendid job. I loved the eclectic camera angles, the zooms and hand-held shots. The soundtrack is distinctive featuring songs by artists who allowed their music to be used at a significantly lower price due to the movie’s low budget. The on-location shooting done at an abandoned seminary in Kenmore, Washington is perfect with the gray and dreary Northwest late autumn landscape perfectly reflecting the grim characters and situation. 

The acting is impeccable especially Glover who creates a three-dimensional villain who’s bullying at times, but at other points nervous and insecure. Mitchell-Smith, whose teen heart throb appearance belies is high-pitched voice, which I’ve never cared for and the reason I believe his acting career didn’t last, is quite good mainly because he isn’t forced to say much and instead relies on his reactions to what goes on around him, which in that element he excels. Langham is the perfect composite of the preppie bully particularly with that hairstyle that has ‘attitude’ written all over it, but his best moment is when he picks at a pimple on his arm after he gets off the phone with someone. I had noticed it during his conversation and was almost stunned when he picked at it. So many other teen movies show adolescents with unblemished skin, with maybe only a few geeky kids that have acne, but here one of the ‘cool’ kids was shown with it, which coupled with him actually trying to squeeze, which teens in reality will do, was genuinely groundbreaking and not something I’ve ever seen in any movie before or since. 

While there’s many memorable moments there’s a few loopholes as well. The fact that the students didn’t have any locks on their lockers, and thus allowing the Vigils to put trash into Jerry’s locker, didn’t seem valid as virtually every high school I’ve been in, past or present, does. The running segment dealing with Jerry and his father receiving harassing anonymous calls is quite dated due to now having caller ID, but even then, they could’ve still called the authorities to have their phone line tapped and thus the calls would’ve been traced, which is something you’d think they’d ultimately would do as it continued to occur. It’s also unclear how the students are able to sell the boxes of chocolates and achieve such a high quota. The film intimates they’re using unscrupulous methods, but not explicit enough as to the exact method. 

Spoiler Alert!

The film’s most controversial moment, and one that may have led to it doing poorly at the box office, is the way it changes the original ending. In the book Jerry gets defeated by Archie in the climactic boxing match, but in the movie, Jerry wins, and Archie is subsequently replaced as The Vigil’s leader. Personally, both endings have interesting nuances, so I can’t say I favor one over the other though the movie version does bring out some intriguing elements. However, fans of the novel tend to hate it feeling it was an attempt by Hollywood to give the story a more ‘uplifting’ conclusion. 

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: November 18, 1988

Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Keith Gordon

Studio: MCEG

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, PlutoTV, Tubi

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Adolescence/High School, Cult, Movies Based on Novels

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

The Pope of Greenwich Village (1984)

Posted on January 26, 2025 | 1 comment

pope

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Cousins turn to crime.

Charlie (Mickey Rourke) and Paulie (Eric Roberts) are cousins working at a restaurant who get themselves fired when Paulie is caught skimming checks. Since Charlie’s girlfriend Diane (Daryl Hannah) has a baby on the way he must act fast to bring in some money. Paulie convinces him of a ‘great’ opportunity, which is to hire a former safecracker, now working as a clock repairman, Barney (Kenneth McMillan) to break-open a safe inside the building of a large company that reportedly has a large amount of money inside it. Charlie is cautious as he doesn’t completely trust Paulie whom he finds immature and unseasoned, but he’s so desperate that he reluctantly agrees. Things go smoothly at first, as they’re able to break into the building easily, but the unexpected arrival of undercover cop Walter (Jack Kehoe) soon sends their plans awry. When Walter dies during the melee they’re now on the hook for his death as well as in the bad graces of mob boss Eddie (Burt Young) who’s safe it was that they tried to rob. 

The film is based off of the 1979 novel of the same name by Vincent Patrick who also penned the screenplay. It does an excellent job of creating a vivid feel of Greenwich Village where it was shot on-location and the interactions of the characters seem overall authentic. The only real issue is the way it hinges of extreme Italian American stereotypes where it seems like anyone from that background must be involved in crime and if any other group was portrayed that way it would be deemed problematic if not downright controversial. The cliches are so strong that had it been heightened just a small degree it could’ve been deemed as parody, or even satire and in fact IMDb does list it as being a ‘comedy’ though I really don’t think that’s the case. I believe it’s meant to be a drama, but either way, for the sake of balance, it would’ve helped had there been some Italians even just one who didn’t fall into the tired caricatures. 

The acting is the crowning achievement. Roberts is superb and I really found it hard to believe he didn’t become a star from this. While he’s always been a great character actor I think he should’ve been given more and I do realize he’s still busy in the business and has been consistently, but I don’t think the quality of the parts has always been there and most filmgoers are probably more familiar with his sister Julia, which is a shame. I was completely blow away by him here and genuinely surprised why the Oscar didn’t fall into his lap.

Rourke is excellent too, but more because he wisely underplays his role and allows Roberts to carry all the emotional energy. Had they both been competing for it it would’ve failed, but their different approaches help create a nice contrast and sometimes it’s the best actors who don’t force it and for the most part that’s what Rourke does here. Of course, he too has his moments like when they go to the racetrack, and he bumps into a guy and instead saying ‘excuse me’ like a normal person he instead says, ‘out of my way asshole’. Him beating up on his refrigerator when Diane leaves him has a memorable quality to it though I would’ve thought the fridge would’ve been more damaged and he should’ve at the very least injured his hand, which strangely doesn’t occur despite him punching at it repeatedly.  

On the female end most accolades goes to Geraldine Page who got nominated for the supporting Oscar despite having only 8-minutes of screentime. She gives a powerful performance for her limited presence, but the idea that she could stymie police efforts to search her deceased son’s room by giving veiled threats that she’ll make them look bad in the media I didn’t totally buy. If cops want something bad enough, they’ll get it with the possible exception of money exchanging hands, which in this case didn’t happen. Hannah as the girlfriend has almost the same screentime, maybe a little more, and hits the bullseye as an idealistic young woman who believes she can somehow get her boyfriend to change only to learn the ultimate harsh lesson that it doesn’t work that way. 

Spoiler Alert!

The ending I felt was a letdown. I was actually intrigued with Charlie finding the tape from the deceased cop that implicated Eddie and seeing how he could use that to stay out of trouble for being a part of the robbery. Having Paulie then swoop in by putting lye into Eddie’s drink and poisoning him seemed too easy. Eddie had just gotten done having his men cut-off Paulie’s thumb, so he should expect Paulie would be looking for revenge and not naive enough to have him make his drinks, or if he does at least have one of his henchmen taste it first. You have to wonder how Eddie was able to climb up the crime ladder if he was that stupid and thus the climax really isn’t that clever, or surprising as the camera focuses up-close on the coffee cup making it too evident that something is going to happen. A letdown for a movie that had been relatively smart up until then.  

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: June 22, 1984

Runtime: 2 Hours

Rated R

Director: Stuart Rosenberg

Studio: MGM/UA

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, YouTube, Tubi, PlutoTV

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Buddy Movies, Gangster Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Movies that take place in the Big Apple

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Johnny Dangerously (1984)

Posted on January 21, 2025 | Leave a comment

johnnydangerously

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: From newsboy to gangster.

Young Johnny (Byron Thames) must find some income to help his mother (Maureen Stapleton) with her medical expenses. He catches the eye of Jocko (Peter Boyle) a notorious gangster who offers him odd crime jobs to do part-time and Johnny takes him up on it but feels guilty. The years pass and a grown-up Johnny (Micheal Keaton) finds that his mother’s health hasn’t improved, and the bills continue, so he decides to get into the gangster business full-time and even takes over as head of the gang once run by Jocko. The money is so good that it not only covers everything his mother could need but also helps his younger brother Tommy (Griffin Dunne) get through law school. However, once Tommy graduates, he gets a job at the D.A. office where becomes committed to stamp out corruption and put all criminals behind bars even if it would mean his older brother.

The pace and structure are modeled after the more successful Airplane movies in which the light plot works as a platform for a barrage of rapid-fire jokes and pratfalls mostly satirizing gangster movies from the ’30’s. While Airplane came off as fresh and funny as it poked fun of all the disaster movies from the ’70’s this thing seems old and tired before it’s barely even begun. The biggest issue is that gangsters had already been parodied for many years both in TV and on the big screen. By the time this movie came-out most of the jokes had already been used many times over and the comedy fails to create anything inventive. The characters are nothing more than walking-talking cliches that mouth banal one-liners and not much else. Almost all the jokes fall flat, nothing sticks and has no edge to it. It’s something that could’ve easily been made for TV and it should be no surprise that the writers were two men who helped create the ‘Different Strokes’ TV-show.

What surprised me most is that it wasn’t even dirty, or at least not that much. It’s directed by Amy Heckerling who had just gotten done doing Fast Times at Ridgemont High, which seemed to have bawdiness and sexual innuendoes in almost every frame and yet here there’s surprisingly very little. Yes, there’s an animated segment dealing with victims of enlarge scrotums, which doesn’t have much to do with the story, but is kind of amusing, but that’s about it. Some more sex and even nudity could’ve helped enliven things, or at the very least given something more to laugh it. The malapropisms by the gangster character Moronie, played by Richard Dimitri, where he uses a lot of colorful language that sounds like curse words, but really aren’t I didn’t find to be clever at all. Today words like fuck and fucking are used liberally in social media and even casual daily conversations. I even hear young neighborhood kids saying it, so for a movie to think that it’s ‘pushing the envelope’ by having someone use phrases the sound like the F-word but aren’t makes the movie seem quite dated.

I didn’t care for Keaton. He comes-off like some smart ass who’s phoning in his performance with a pasted-on smile that never leaves his face. It’s like he isn’t even acting or trying to create any type of character. He just casually walks on, makes a semi-amusing remark, and then walks-off. Thames who played the younger version of Johnny was better and the movie could’ve been more engaging had Johnny remained a kid the whole way and then watching an innocent teen take down the gangsters and even ultimately become their leader would’ve had some original spin that’s otherwise lacking.

Joe Piscopo, who plays Johnny’s criminal rival, is quite good and as opposed to Keaton, seems to be making some sort of effort to play a role and I thought he should’ve been in it more, or even just given the reins and taken over completely. The film’s promotional poster makes it seem like the two will have equal screentime, but that’s shockingly not the case and Joe’s presence amounts to a few walk-ons, which is a shame.

The rest of the supporting cast are equally wasted. Marilu Henner sings a nice dance number but otherwise doesn’t do or say anything else that’s interesting. Stapleton looks way too old for the role of a mother and would be more suited as a grandmother. At one point she even refers to herself as being ’29’ despite having gray hair. Don’t know if this was meant to be a ‘funny joke’, but it doesn’t work and is dumb like most everything else. Dunne is miscast as well. He’s supposed to be this young idealist but appears much more like someone already in their 30’s and would’ve been more authentic had they gotten a college aged student with a wide-eyed, clean-cut image versus Dunne who’s always had more of a weary and beaten down impression. Dom Deluise though is the most out-of-place in a part that amounts to being a cameo as the Pope who appears inexplicably on a city sidewalk for some strange reason that misses-the-mark completely in a gag that like everything else gets thrown-in with little thought, or care.

I did do enjoy Danny DeVito who amazes me how even when given small roles still manage to steal the proceedings especially with his impromptu hosting of a game show send-up. I’ll even give a few props to the ‘pass the secret message’ segment done inside a jail where one prisoner whispers something into another prisoner’s ear, who then passes it along to yet another guy and so forth down the line until it gets to the last one where the initial message has now become completely distorted, which got me to laugh, but honestly that was the only time during the whole viewing that I did.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: December 21, 1984

Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Director: Amy Heckerling

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Campy Comedy, Gangster Movies, Parody

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

A Private Function (1984)

Posted on January 18, 2025 | Leave a comment

privatefunction

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Couple hides a pig.

The year is 1947 and even though the war has been over for 2 years there’s still food rationing going on in this small England town. Gilbert (Michael Palin) works as a podiatrist and travels to residential homes where he cuts the toenails of the women who live there. During some of his visits he comes upon families who are hiding meat in their homes, and they must rush to cover-up any evidence of it when the local food inspector (John Normington) comes around to investigate. One such home has been illegally raising a pig in hopes to use it for a private party to celebrate the upcoming Royal Wedding between Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip. Gilbert tells his wife Joyce (Maggie Smith) about it, and she convinces him to steal the pig, so that they can sell it off to the bacon black market but trying to hide a pig from both their neighbors as well as Joyce’s noisy elderly mother (Liz Smith) let alone being able to kill it proves quite challenging.

The film is a perfect mix of droll English humor and quirky moments. It starts out with a very original idea and manages to add one amusing moment, or sly comment, after the other becoming one of the better foreign comedies of the year where you can pick-up on funny little things that you might’ve missed on the first viewing, each time you watch it. Palin is especially good as a timid man who finds himself in the middle of chaos that he didn’t want and his unique profession along with the giant plastic foot that he orders to help represent his business are all on-target as are his engagingly consternated facial expressions.

Initially I thought Smith, a two-time Academy Award winner, was wasted here as she isn’t seen much during the first act and pushed mainly to the background making it seem almost like a token role that doesn’t have much pizazz, but she comes on strong by the end by having an interesting arch where she is just a passive, doting wife at first, but proves to be quite controlling, conniving and even demanding by the end. Liz Smith is equally engaging as the sometimes-confused aging mother ‘she’s 74’ whose dialogue is limited, but the few lines that she does say are doozies.

Spoiler Alert!

The pig though becomes the main star even though behind-the-scenes it made things quite difficult to film. This led to one 12-year-old boy getting his ‘big break’ into show business. When he heard that they were going to be making a movie in his area he proudly proclaimed that he’d be ‘willing to do anything’ in order to ‘get into the movies’ so the producer handed him a pail and told him to follow the pig around and collect its droppings every time it defecated and for this he got his name proudly billed during the final credits as ‘the bucket boy’.

As pigs go this one struck me as being quite small. Apparently, this was intentional as the filmmakers were advised by animal experts to choose a 6-month-old female pig as it was deemed, they’d be easier to control and less unpredictable, but visually she looked too scrawny and certainly not the type of pig to be used as the centerpiece for a giant feast such as the one that the townspeople were excitedly planning. It’s also a bit of a downer, even depressing, when the animal is eventually killed and served up on a platter. There’s a lot of close calls where the animal evades death and it makes it seem almost like the human captors were ultimately too afraid to do it, but when it does finally occur it hurts the film’s levity and makes it feel like murder when it does die and thus sucks all of the comedy that came before it right out.

The climactic party isn’t eventful either making the story go out with a whimper. It had been relatively lively up to then with all sorts of subtle twists and goofy turns only to end things on a dry note. There needed to be some sort of ultimate confrontation between the couple and the former owners of the pig, so things could’ve ended with more of a bang as it’s not quite able to hold-up feeling almost like it ran out of ideas with an uninspired conclusion.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: November 9, 1984

Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Malcolm Mowbray

Studio: HandMade Films

Available: DVD

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Black Comedy, British Movies, Dry Humor, Foreign Films

Tagged , , , , ,

Perfect (1985)

Posted on January 6, 2025 | Leave a comment

perfect3

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Reporter investigates aerobics craze.

Adam (John Travolta) is a reporter working for Rolling Stone magazine who gets sent on assignment to Los Angeles. While there he becomes intrigued with the health fitness craze and believes the workout clubs are becoming like the singles bars of the 80’s. He asks his editor Mark (Jann Wenner) permission to write a secondary story focusing on this new phenomenon and he agrees. Once he begins attending the club he becomes infatuated with Jessie (Jamie Lee Curtis), one of the instructors. He asks her for an interview, but she refuses based on a past experience she had with another journalist, but Adam continues to pressure her. Eventually the two begin dating only for Jessie’s initial fears to ultimately get exposed when she reads the story he’s written about the club, before it gets sent to the press, and realizes it’s a negative take on the people in it, many of whom are her friends, which leads to a serious strain on their relationship. 

The film is loosely based on the real-life experiences of Aaron Latham who worked as a reporter for Rolling Stone during the late 70’s. He had already written the screenplay for Urban Cowboy, which also starred Travolta and was also directed by James Bridges, so this reteaming was expected to be a huge hit, but instead it lost over $8 million at the box office despite initially doing well on its opening weekend. A lot of the problem is that journalists aren’t considered likable people and most of the American public by and large despise them. The fact that this one behaves exactly the way you’d expect, being more than willing to exploit their subject, particularly with the way he treats the Marilu Henner and Laraine Newman characters, in order to get a juicy spin on a story, just makes him all the more despicable. 

His character is quite blah as well. We never learn why he wanted to get into journalism and if some backstory had been given, and not just starting out with him working in the obituary section and trying to move his way up, then he might’ve had more depth. It’s confusing too why such a good-looking, jet-setting guy, wouldn’t have a girlfriend. Maybe if he’d been through a rough break-up and thus wanted to avoid it that might’ve been understandable but should’ve been explained. Even just having some casual dates would’ve made sense but having him just all alone with no reason only adds to make the character even more transparent. 

Curtis as an actress is excellent and the movie is worth sitting through solely because of her and she’s looking really hot here too. However, her character’s responses to things seemed a bit off. She makes it quite clear upfront that she’s not interested in an interview, but Adam doesn’t take no for answer and proceeds to continue to hound her, which should make her hate him even more, but for some reason it doesn’t. Yes, he does help get her car started when her battery dies, so as a thank you she might’ve been willing to do a simple interview, but instead her repayment is to go to bed with him while still refusing to do any interview, even though I felt realistically it should’ve worked the other way. 

The concept itself isn’t intriguing. I lived through the 80’s and really didn’t care why people got into the aerobics thing. Revealing that some of those that did was because they were lonely and looking to meet someone to hook-up, isn’t exactly groundbreaking. The entire supporting cast is incredibly dull including Jann Wenner, the original co-found of Rolling Stone magazine, who essentially plays himself as Adam’s boss, but his performance is lackluster, and a professional actor should’ve been given the role. 

Spoiler Alert!

My biggest gripe came at the end where Curtis keeps going back to Travolta even as he does all the things that irritates her about reporters like secretly recording their conversations while in a car. That alone should’ve gotten her to dump him, which she does for a while, but then she returns. One forgiveness is okay, everybody deserves a second chance, but then he does it again with the negative story. Granted having the article revealing that she had an affair with her coach years ago wasn’t his fault as his editors put that into the story later on, but she had no way of knowing that. From her perspective he betrayed her trust and therefore the relationship should’ve been permanently over. She didn’t care for reporters right from the beginning and all he did was affirm her confirmation bias. It would’ve been more believable had she instead liked journalists and maybe wanted to be one herself and therefore kept given him the benefit of the doubt, but the way it gets done her makes little sense. 

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: June 7, 1985

Runtime: 2 Hours

Rated R

Director: James Bridges

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD, Amazon Video, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Drama, Movies Based on Short Stories, Movies with Nudity, Romance

Tagged , , , , , ,

Barfly (1987)

Posted on December 30, 2024 | Leave a comment

barfly

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Drunks at a bar.

Henry Chinaski (Mickey Rourke) is a bum who has very little money, lives in a small rundown apartment that’s more like a sleeping room, and spends most of his time getting drunk at a bar across the street called The Golden Horn. It’s here where he gets into arguments with Eddie (Frank Stallone) the bartender. During one of their confrontations the two go out back and have a fistfight behind the building, which Henry unceremoniously loses. Feeling embarrassed and dejected he goes on a crusade to ‘win his title’ back by finding food in order to regain his energy, but when he rips a sandwich out of another customer’s hand, since he doesn’t have money he must steal from others, he gets thrown out of the bar by Jim (J.C. Quinn) the bar owner. He then stumbles his way to another waterhole named Kenmore where he meets Wanda (Faye Dunaway) a fellow alcoholic. The two create a makeshift bond and end-up going back to her place, an apartment paid for by a married man who covers for her life necessities, as a kept woman, as long as she’s willing to put-out when he wants it. Just when Henry thinks he might be falling in-love she betrays him by have a tryst with Eddie. Feeling dejected Henry turns back to the bottle only to have Tully (Alice Krige) show-up at the doorstep. She’s a publisher offering him a check of $500 in compensation for some of the poems and short stories that he had submitted, which she found to be both gifted and profound. Henry though isn’t sure he can accept the money as he’s more comfortable being poor and not used to being liked, or a part of the upper class, which for decades he had found snotty. Then Wanda comes back into his life and when she finds out about Tully she makes a personal vendetta to ‘put her out’ as she feels rightly or wrongly that Henry is ‘hers’ and no other woman can have him.

The film is based loosely on the life of Charles Bukowski, who used the character of Henry Chinaski in five of his novels and was considered his alter-ego. It was produced by the notorious Cannon Group a production company that had a portfolio of a hodge-podge of movies some of them of a decent quality and others that were anything but. Although they had made a commitment to finance this one it almost didn’t get made as the studio was going through a period of financial distress and felt this one required too much money to fund, so they threatened to pull-out until director Barbet Shcroeder appeared at their office with a Black and Decker power saw warning that he would cut-off one his fingers to show the world that ‘Cannon was cutting-off a piece of him by pulling out of the project’, which was enough to get the execs to change their mind.

As a film it works mainly because it used authentic Los Angeles locations, many of which Bukowski frequented in real-life, as the setting. The dismal interiors really help create a vivid look making the viewer feel they’re as trapped in the skid row surroundings as the protagonist and with no discernable way to get out. The apartment sequences are especially engaging not only for the scene, that comes near the end, where Henry finally busts in on his noisy neighbors where he has a memorable confrontation, but also at the beginning when he accidentally goes into an apartment that isn’t his, but since it looks just as bleak as his sans for some decorative window curtains, he at first doesn’t even know it.

As a character study it’s revealing though it does hinge on how much tolerance the viewer will have towards someone whose decidedly self-destructive at every turn. Rourke plays the part in an over-the-top way particularly the weird style he walks almost like he’s trying to put a touch of camp to it and I don’t blame Bukowski, who stated in a later interview that Rourke was ‘too exaggerated and a bit of a show-off’ in the part, which Bukowski ultimately felt that he ‘didn’t get right’ though he later warmed-up to it and possibly other viewers may as well.

Dunaway seemed more problematic playing a woman on the skids was definitely not a part of her repertoire and she seems miscast. She almost makes-up for it by appearing topless during the bathroom scene and then getting into a climactic catfight with Krige at the end, but I didn’t understand why the woman would be wearing what appeared to me as female business attire as that was something her character was not and therefore she should’ve had something more ragged to wear even if it was just a simple jeans and T-shirt.

Spoiler Alert!

The film has many quirky moments including the two paramedics that come to visit Henry on a couple of occasions, which almost steals the movie and make this seems more like a surreal, dark comedy than a drama. The leisurely pace I liked and seems more suited for a European audience that isn’t so plot driven, but I would’ve liked seeing Henry working more at his craft. He’s only shown writing a couple of times, which is so brief that I really didn’t think he was that committed to it and almost like a novice writing words on notebook paper making it a complete surprise when a publisher eventually does show-up. You’d think if he hadn’t even bothered to type out what he had written most publishers would’ve thrown it away making the moments with the agent seem almost dream-like and more a fantasy than the intended reality.

I was a bit turned-off by the ending. I remember reading an article back in the 80’s that this movie was an example of a ‘downbeat ending’ that Hollywood studios were shying away from. During the 70’s sad endings had become the standard, but by the 80’s they tended to not register as well with the public and thus making upbeat conclusions became the norm. However, the article had specifically pointed out this movie as having an ending, which ‘wasn’t a happy one’, but I didn’t get that impression. I thought maybe it would have Henry getting knocked out by Eddie during their fight ‘rematch’, but the camera tracks out of the bar, so we never see the results of the confrontation and it’s all left open, so it’s neither sad nor happy. My only conclusion is that the article’s author felt this was a ‘sad’ ending because Henry went back to his old ways of drinking versus becoming a successful writer, but for some people success is a scary thing and falling into their familiar habits, as bleak and destructive as they may seem to others, offers a weird form of security, so I felt it ended on a high note because Henry was doing what was right for him and with the type of people he felt comfortable with. Being rich and famous would never have worked with his personality and therefore he was better off without it.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: October 16, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 37 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Barbet Schroeder

Studio: The Cannon Group

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Black Comedy, Movies with Nudity

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)

Posted on December 26, 2024 | Leave a comment

silent

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: A killer Santa Claus.

When he’s only 5-years-old Billy Chapman (Jonathan Best) has a very traumatic experience. It starts when he and his family are visiting their grandfather (Will Hare) inside a senior living facility. While his parents and younger brother are temporarily out of the room his grandfather, who usually never says a word, suddenly speaks by warning him about Santa Claus and how he punishes those who’ve been naughty. On the car ride home, his family is attacked by a gunmen dressed as Santa (Charles Dierkop) who has just robbed a liquor store. Both his parents are killed by the man, but Billy manages to escape by running out of the vehicle and hiding behind some bushes. Things now flash forward to the year 1984 where Billy (now played by Robert Brian Wilson) is 18 and still suffering from the dark memories of the event as well as the abusive upbringing inside the orphanage he was sent to that was ruled by a tyrannical Mother Superior (Lilyan Chauvin). Working as a stock boy at a nearby toy store, he gets asked to fill-in as Santa when the man who usually plays him calls-in sick. Playing the part though brings back up all the repressed emotions of what happened years earlier causing him to have a mental breakdown and turning him into a killer. 

This film ended up becoming quite controversial and it all started when producer Scott J. Schiend accepted story submissions from the public to help him decide what movie project he’d like to finance next. One of those submissions was short story written by a recent college grad named Paul Caimi entitled ‘He Sees You When You’re Sleeping’, which involved a killer Santa. Schnied became intrigued by the concept and hired Michael Hickey to write a full-length screenplay around the premise. Once completed the script was shopped around until Tri-Star Pictures decided to pick-it-up and finance it as well as act as its distributor. 

Since there were already two other films that had been released that dealt with a killer Claus including the 1972 horror anthology Tales from the Crypt, and the 1980 slasher You Better Watch Out! no one behind-the-scenes was expecting this one to create much controversy since neither of those had. However, mainly because of an aggressive marketing campaign, it soon caused the ire of many parents who felt based off of the TV-ads that this film would tarnish the image of Santa Claus and make children fear him and thus a movement to have the movie removed from theaters was created. Even Siskel and Ebert got in on it by focusing an entire episode of their show to it and reading out the names of the cast and crew in order to ‘shame’ them for having worked on the production. The movie was soon pulled after having been in theaters for only a week, but the controversy ended up having a Streisand effect as it garnered it more attention than it would’ve otherwise, and it made a hefty profit at the box office and ultimately became a cult hit that spawned 4 sequels as well as a reboot.  

It seems to me that most people that protested the movie didn’t actually watch it because if they had they’d realize that it’s made very clear that the guy doing the killings isn’t really Santa nor does he even look much like him. The kid who plays him doesn’t even bother putting the beard on and his own face is constantly exposed while he does the butchering, so at no point does the viewer ever see him as being anyone other than a troubled teen with severe mental issues. I actually wished the part had been played by Dierkop who portrays the initial Santa during the hold-up and puts far better energy into the role and genuinely looks more like the classic Claus both in his age and physical build. 

The movie puts a lot of effort into showing how Billy became the way he does, but for me that was a problem as it gets too plodding and seems to take forever for the carnage to get going, which for a slasher fan is what you really want to see. Would’ve been better had it started out right away with this guy Santa killing people, maybe even one of the kids who sits on his lap at the store, and with no reason why he was doing it, and then through intermittent flashbacks allow his back story to be revealed versus having the background painfully elaborated from the start, which takes away any mystery, or surprise. There’s also the issue of young Billy having prominent brown eyes, but when he reaches adolescence his eye color suddenly turns to blue. 

Spoiler Alert!

My biggest complaint though is with the Mother Superior. Chauvin plays the part quite well making the nun scarier than the killer and somebody you really love to hate, but she’s never killed off, which is a huge disappointment. Many people who grew up going to a strict Catholic School might’ve enjoyed seeing a disciplinarian nun get hacked and it might’ve been cathartic and thus having it not occur doesn’t give the film a sufficient payoff. 

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: November 9, 1984

Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Charles E. Sellier Jr.

Studio: Tri-Star Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Christmas Movies, Cold Climate/Wintertime Movies, Cult, Horror, Movies with Nudity, Slasher/Gore

Tagged , , , , ,

Max Dugan Returns (1983)

Posted on December 17, 2024 | Leave a comment

max1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Estranged father comes back.

Nora (Marsha Mason) is a single mother living with her 15-year-old son Michael (Matthew Broderick) who’s struggling to make ends meet as a High School English Teacher. Things become particularly desperate when her beat-up 1964 Volvo car gets stolen and she no longer has any transportation to get to work nor the money to afford buying a new car, or even a used one. Fortunately, the officer working on the case, Brian (Donald Sutherland) takes a liking to her and offers her to use his motorbike even though she needs training on how to drive it. Once she goes through the crash course and begins using it she still has other financial concerns to worry about until one night she receives a mysterious visitor, which turns-out to be her estranged father Max Dugan (Jason Robards) who ran-out on his family 29 years earlier. Now he has returned with a briefcase full of $687,000, which he skimmed from a crooked casino that he used to work at. He tells her he has only 6-months to live and advises her to take the money, so that she and her son can live stress-free, but Nora isn’t so sure she wants to accept it, so Max goes about buying her stuff anyways including a fancy new car.

This has to be one of Neil Simon’s least imaginative efforts and the concept seems so contrived it’s like he thought it up for the 10-minutes that he was sitting on the john. I’ll admit when I was a teen and watched it when it first came out, I enjoyed it. I especially remembered the scenes dealing with Charley Lau, who regrettably died less than a year after the film’s release, where he plays himself the hitting coach for the Chicago White Sox baseball team, who Max hires to help Michael become a better hitter and these teaching scenes I found to be engaging. Unfortunately, the foundational premise has a lot of holes.

The idea that a father would suddenly want to see his daughter after 29 years of being away didn’t seem authentic. If he longed to reconnect then why not reach out earlier? Granted he was in jail for 6 of those years, but what about the other 23? If family was so important to him then why run out on them in the first place? Why doesn’t he at least make some attempts in-between those years to communicate like sending letters of phone calls before just showing up and expecting to be welcomed with open arms? The idea of throwing her and his grandson a lot of money comes-off in bad taste like he’s simply trying to buy their love and if anything seems quite shallow. During those 29 years away you’d think he would’ve met other people he’d become friends with, or other women he dated that he might’ve wanted to give the money to instead, or are we to presume that for 3-decades he lived in a cave and made no contact with anyone else?

I didn’t get why Nora didn’t recognize her father when he called. Yes, it had been awhile since she had last heard or seen him, it’s stated that she was 9 when he left, but he has a distinctive voice, so I’d think it would set something off in the back of her brain that she knows who this is, but can’t quite place it, versus having her immediately call the police in panic after getting a call from some ‘strange man’. He also tells her at one point that he may not actually be Max Dugan, but again she wasn’t a month-old infant when she last saw him, but instead someone entering the fourth grade, which should’ve given her a solid enough memory of what he looked like and thus know if this was her real father, or not.

To help solve all of this Nora should’ve been made a divorcee instead of a widow. The husband/father could’ve been the one who went to jail and then returned a 6 years later with stolen money hoping to use it to win back his wife’s and son’s favor. It would’ve made more sense because less time would’ve passed, and he’d have a more vested emotional interest in bonding with his son since he was directly his versus an elusive grandfather who didn’t even know the kid existed until being ‘tipped off’ that Nora had one by some secondary source.

Matthew Broderick’s character is problematic too. He seems just too obedient and goody-goody to be a believable teen as he promptly makes his bed every morning, even his mother’s, asks to be excused from the dinner table, and even lets his mother kiss him while in full view of his friends. Yes, there’s one brief moment where he tries to sneak a smoke, but otherwise I didn’t detect the typical rebellion to authority that most teens that age have, and it would’ve been improved had the kid been 9 or 10 where still being compliant with their parents’ wishes is a little more understandable.

Sutherland’s character was off as well as he seems way too aggressive about asking out a woman that he had just met while on-duty and actively investigating her case making it ethically questionable whether he should even be doing it. If a guy does come-on to a woman so quickly, simply because she’s attractive and single, as he knew nothing else about her, you’d presume he’s done this to other available women as well and thus should have a throng of casual girlfriends and Nora would just be one of many. The film should’ve just had him already her boyfriend from the start and thus avoided this otherwise awkward and rushed relationship. I also thought it was dumb that Kiefer Sutherland, who appears early on in a brief non-speaking role as one of Broderick’s friends, wasn’t cast as Donald’s son in the climactic baseball sequence at the end and instead the part was given to another young actor.

Spoiler Alert!

The money issue becomes yet another problem as Max spends it on so many lavish gifts that I started to wonder if there would be any left to put into savings. The idea that he could’ve had workers refurbish the house in just one day while Nora and son where in school is ridiculous as something that massive would take weeks if not months. He even ends up driving away with the car he had bought her leaving her again without a vehicle. Yes, he does open-up a bank account in her name and puts in $400,000, but her cop boyfriend was already aware of this and made clear he put his duty to uphold the law over his personal relationships making it very probable that she’d be forced to give it all back. Worse she might be considered an accomplice forcing her to hire an attorney, which would’ve sent her into even more debt making it seem like she’d be better off had the whole thing not even happened to begin with.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: March 25, 1983

Runtime: 1 Hour 38 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Herbert Ross

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD, Amazon Video, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Adolescence/High School, Comedy

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Night Shift (1982)

Posted on December 12, 2024 | Leave a comment

nightshift1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Hookers in a morgue.

Chuck (Henry Winkler) has dropped-out of his former job as a stockbroker due to the stress and decided to work in a more tranquil setting as the night shift manager of a New York City morgue. He’s unhappy though to have to share duties with Bill (Michael Keaton) who’s talkative and partying ways are a complete contrast to Chuck’s introverted manner. Chuck’s home-life isn’t much better as he’s engaged to be married to Charlotte (Gina Hecht) though her habits and constant complaining are at odds with Chuck’s. His only solace is Belinda (Shelly Long) a prostitute whom he sometimes bumps into as she’s servicing his next-door neighbor Luke (Tim Rossovich). When Chuck finds her beaten-up inside an elevator he decides she needs to find a work environment that will afford her more protection, which gives Bill the idea to open-up a prostitution ring inside the morgue, which goes-off surprisingly well for  awhile before rival pimps become aware of it and threaten Bill and Chuck with their lives unless they agree to let them in on the payout.

This marked the second feature length film directed by Ron Howard and was inspired by a New York Times article about a real-life morgue that became a prostitution hang-out during its night hours. He decided to offer the leading role to Winkler, who had the choice of either playing Bill or Chuck but went with Chuck as he felt it would be fun playing against type, or in his words a ‘chance to play Richie Cunningham’. Winkler was still acting in ‘Happy Days’ TV-show at the time, so he’d shoot this on Mondays and Tuesdays in New York and then fly back to Hollywood to play Fonzie on Thursdays and Fridays.

While the change of pace may have shown what a good actor Winkler was it really didn’t help his image as the protagonist here is too wimpy. A somewhat passive guy is okay, but this guy lets people push him around too much making him look pathetic and his buttoned-down personality doesn’t show much energy making most of his moments in front of the camera too subtle to be either funny or engaging.

Keaton on the other-hand is too flamboyant, and his talkative ways become obnoxious instead of endearing and I personally didn’t blame Winkler for telling the guy to shut-up and leave him alone as I would’ve felt the same way. The story could’ve worked just as well if not better had Keaton not been in it at all and let Winkler carry-it alone, which would’ve allowed for a more interesting character arch at seeing this nebbish guy run a prostitution ring and thus learn to open-up more because of it.

Winkler’s relationship with Charlotte made little sense as the two had nothing in common and all she did was nag and complain. Why would anyone want to date someone like that let alone get engaged with them? I realize this was supposed to be part of the ‘comedy’ but for it to be funny there actually has to be some truth in it and these two shared no chemistry and at least one of them would’ve in reality come to their senses and broke it off and logically it’s surprising that it didn’t happen. The Charlotte character wasn’t even needed because the focus is on Winkler’s budding romance with Long, so why not just have him be a single guy who’s lonely and can’t make it with women and thus becomes entranced with Long despite her being a hooker simply because she showed him some attention.

While she gives a really good performance that’s light years removed from her Diane Chambers role from ‘Cheers’ that she’s best known for, and she sure looks great in the scene where she wears skimpy panties, her character here is problematic. She’s too wide-eyed and innocent for a woman whose been working as a call girl on the big city streets and even been badly beaten-up a few times by her pimp and johns. Seems like she should’ve formed a very hardened, crusty exterior for her own basic mental defense and the fact that she doesn’t show any of this and instead is so openly sweet seemed not remotely believable.

The premise has great potential, but it doesn’t do enough with it. For most of the way the pace is leisurely and the comedy subtle. I was expecting dead bodies coming-in amidst the sex and lots of mix-ups and confusion, but that stuff barely even gets touched upon. The prostitutes are portrayed as an extreme caricature with no distinct personalities, which reveals how shallow the whole thing is. Back-in-the-day, and I know because I was around, movies dealing with the subject of prostitution was considered ‘edgy’, but now stuff like this is looks trite and barely even touching the surface in regard to realism.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: July 30, 1982

Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Ron Howard

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Plex, Roku, Tubi, Amazon Video, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Buddy Movies, Comedy, Movies that take place in the Big Apple, Movies with Nudity

Tagged , , , , , ,

Blow Out (1981)

Posted on December 3, 2024 | 2 comments

blowout2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: He hears a murder.

Jack (John Travolta) works as a sound effects technician for a film studio that specializes in low budget horror movies. He gets instructed by his producer Sam (Peter Boyden) to come-up with a more realistic sounding scream, as well as other audio noises, for the most recent exploitation production that they’ve been working-on. Jack then goes out one night to capture the necessary noises, but while doing so witnesses a car drive-off the road and into a nearby river. He immediately jumps into the water and saves a passenger named Sally (Nancy Allen), who had been sitting in the backseat, but he’s unable to get to the driver. Later it’s revealed that the driver was a candidate running for governor and Sally was his escort and pressure is put on Jack by the campaign officials not to reveal this to the press. Jack also comes to the realization, while going back and listening to what he had recorded, that the car going to into the river was no accident as he had initially thought, but instead it had been caused by a gunshot from an undisclosed assassin who intentionally shot at the tire so the vehicle would swerve-off the road, but when Jack goes to the authorities about this they don’t believe him.

The film is noted for having been heavily inspired by the Michaelangelo Antonioni’s classic Blow-up, which came-out 15 years earlier and focused on a photographer who inadvertently witnesses a killing via a picture he takes, while this one is on what the protagonist hears. This could also be considered quite similar to The Conversation, a masterpiece that was released in 1974 and dealt with a sound expert that gets in over-his-head with a criminal underground. Both of those films though were better than this one, which has some flashy camera work, but little else.

I did like Travolta. This was the first film where he becomes essentially an adult and no longer stuck in that quasi-age of a post teen growing into manhood and needing to prove himself. Here we get the bona fide thing and the character’s cynical nature about his job and being stuck in an industry that he doesn’t really respect, or all that excited about, is a refreshing change-of-pace from his more wide-eyed, idealistic roles of the past. The behind-the-scenes look at the movie business, including all the posters from actual horror films that line the walls of the studio hallways, and the wannabe starlets dying to break-in even if it meant just letting-out a simple voice-over scream in order to be a part of the cast, I enjoyed and helps add an authentic ambience to what it would be like working in that type of culture.

The character development, or if you could even call it that, is incredibly weak. Nancy Allen is especially annoying not so much for anything she does, she actually puts-on an effective Brooklyn accent, but more for her cliched character. Portraying a prostitute as a blank-eyed, dim-witted simpleton, who still has a ‘heart-of-gold’, is about as overused as it gets making it a laughable caricature and succeeding at causing one long eye roll every time she appears and opens her mouth. The gangsters and police officials are equally contrived though Dennis Franz plays his role, as the corrupt low-life pimp, with such amusing gusto that I was willing to forgive his scenes, and was even entertained by them, but found the rest of the supporting cast to be wasted and transparent.

There are also a few too many plot holes. For instance, the assassin, played by Jon Lithgow, sneaks into an auto repair shop late at night, to remove the tire from the car that had been retrieved from the river, so no one would find out that it had a bullet hole, but wouldn’t the police have thought about looking for that already? The fact that they don’t seems shockingly shoddy as the first thing to investigate after any accident is the cause and not immediately removing the tire and sending it away to a lab for further analysis seems beyond incompetent. Some may argue that the police were paid-off to look the other way and were a part of the ‘cover-up’, but if that were the case then they would’ve still removed the tire, knowing that it was crucial evidence, and then just conveniently ‘lost it’ versus leaving it on the vehicle in some unguarded repair shop that anyone could walk into.

Having Travolta drive his jeep through a parade and nearly kill hundreds of people in the process and then crash into a storefront window where pedestrians come to his aid and call for an ambulance seemed questionable as well. Maybe it was a more innocent era, but I would’ve thought those same people would’ve beaten the crap out of him when they caught-up versus helping him as they would’ve presumed, he had plowed into the parade intentionally and therefor deserved some rough ‘street justice’ for having put so many lives at risk.

Revealing who the killer was in the second act and the reasons for why he did it ruined the suspense and would’ve been more intriguing had the viewer only figured out his identity right when the protagonists do, which comes near the end of the third act. I also thought his killing of other prostitutes who looked similar to Allen, in order to create this fictional serial killer known as the “Liberty Bell Killer, were rather fake. For one thing if a bad guy is intent on killing somebody and stalking them, they come prepared with their own weapons and not hope to inadvertently pick-up some sharp object along the way like he does here. The scene inside a public restroom where he stands over the toilet stall wall in order to strangle his would-be victim who’s standing on the other side and the woman does not sense someone hoovering over her, she looks around, but doesn’t bother to look-up, is baffling since his body was blocking the overhead light and his shadow would’ve tipped her off that there was someone above.

Spoiler Alert!

The biggest head-scratcher gets saved for the end where Travolta essentially gives-up on pursuing the bad guys, even after Allen is murdered, and goes back to his ordinary life as a sound man though in a more guilt-ridden state. The explanation for this is that when Lithgow throws the film of the assassination into the lake along with the audio tape that means the evidence was ‘gone forever’, but it really wasn’t. He had made a copy of the audio tape already and the film was from motion picture stills he had obtained from a tabloid magazine, so all he had to do was buy another copy of the magazine, resync the pics up with his audio tape copy, and his evidence to take to the authorities would be as good as new.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: July 24, 1981

Runtime: 1 Hour 48 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Brian De Palma

Studio: Filmways Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray (Criterion Collection), Amazon Video, YouTube, Pluto TV, Tubi

2 Comments

Posted in 80's Movies, Political Thrillers

Tagged , , , , , , ,