Category Archives: 80’s Movies

How to Beat the High Co$t of Living (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Ball full of money.

            Jane, Elaine, and Louise (Susan Saint James, Jane Curtain, Jessica Lange) are three women who find themselves in financial straits. They become aware of a contest going on at their local mall that features a giant plastic ball filled with money. The idea is to guess how much money is inside the ball, but the women decide to tunnel underneath the building and suck the money out with a vacuum.

The movie falls flat from the beginning. There is no action, hijinks, jokes, or pratfalls. Everything relies on the dialogue that is boring and conventional. The small attempts at humor including some Abraham Lincoln jokes are stale and unimaginative. It takes a plodding 35 minutes just to detail all of their financial difficulties and then another 40 minutes of going through their planning phase before we ever get to the actual heist, which proves not to be worth the wait.

Having a giant ball in the middle of the mall makes for an interesting visual and the concept of trying to get money out of it managed to hold my interest somewhat in what is otherwise a highly uninspired movie. However, I found it hard to believe that these women, as financially desperate as they were, would decide to pull off such a dangerous and complex heist when they had no experience in robbing anything before. Having them rob a bank, although more standard, would have made more sense and with a little imagination could have been even funnier and more interesting. The actual execution of the crime is dull and I thought it was really reckless and stupid that they chose to do it while security guards where standing around it and tons of people present watching a nearby play instead of waiting until the place closed. Also, it was ridiculous during the planning stage when they decided to force Jane to rob a grocery store in order to get her ‘psychologically ready’ and prove that she had the ‘guts’ to pull off the big heist, but this seemed stupid because if she got caught, which could easily happen, then all their plans would have been ruined.

The only thing that half-way saves it are the female leads and I liked all three of them. Saint James is a very attractive woman and normally I don’t particularly like ladies with husky voices, but with her it is sexy. I also enjoyed the naïve quality of her character. Lange is young and beautiful here and looking light years removed from the southern accented old crone that she has been playing in ‘An American Horror Story’. Her vivaciousness helps propel every scene that she is in. Curtain is a blast as well. She has impeccable comic timing and I always felt her presence on ‘Saturday Night Live’ was one of the main reasons that show was so successful and ground-breaking during its first five seasons. The only problem I had with the character is that she performs a striptease near the end, which isn’t funny or sexy and comes off as stupid and degrading instead. It is also quite clearly a body double and not Curtain herself that you end up seeing topless, so for any voyeurs out there who might think of buying this just for that reason, don’t bother.

The male leads are essentially wasted. Eddie Albert has a meaningless role as Jane’s father and I could see no other reason for why he took the part except that he wanted to stay busy in his old age. Richard Benjamin can be great at times, but here his character is vapid. I also thought it was a bit strange that he was cast as Lange’s husband since in real-life he was eleven years older and given her very youthful appearance here almost made it look like a middle-aged guy bedding a minor. Dabney Coleman is cast against type playing a nice guy for a change instead of a conniving jerk that he usually does. Since he plays conniving jerks so well I have always enjoyed him and the change of pace is interesting for a few seconds before it becomes boring like everything else.

The on-location shooting in Eugene, Oregon does not help. The music score comes about as close to ‘elevator music’ as you can get. The opening animation sequence is lame. Outside of a slightly amusing cameo by Garret Morris this thing never gels and it is one film you can afford to miss.

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: July 11, 1980

Runtime: 1Hour 44Minutes

Rated PG (Brief Nudity)

Director: Robert Sheerer

Studio: American International

Available: VHS, DVD, Netflix streaming

Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Three women three stories.

            Some Russian lady friends of mine suggested I review this film, which is a favorite of theirs and awarded the Oscar for best foreign film of 1980. The story deals with three women who room together at a boarding house and detailing their hopes, dreams, and personalities and then the second half examines them several years later and showing how much they have evolved.

The film has a definite European flair in that characters are well-rounded and believable. I found myself liking them right from the beginning and genuinely interested in their fates.  Lyudmila (Irina Muravyova) is engaging and amusing in her attempts to snare a man with prestige and money. Katerina (Vera Alentova) is equally interesting in the other way. I liked seeing how she starts out as shy and naïve, but blossoms into a strong, successful, self-assured woman by the end. The film takes its time in telling the story, letting you get to know the characters and allowing the scenes and situations to gel without the need for any quick edits, or cuts. I also thought director Vladimir Menshov does an excellent job with the women’s aging, which is natural but impressive without any use of make-up. At first I thought the movie had been filmed over a several year period in order to make the aging look so realistic, but that was apparently not the case. In discussing this with my Russian friend she tells me that the women were already in their 30’s when this was filmed, but even if that was the case then making them look so youthful at the beginning is still a successful feat.

The film is not a completely dour drama and manages at times to have a nice light-hearted touch with good amounts of humor. Lyudmila’s schemes are delightful at the beginning, but I also enjoyed the old man who joins a singles social club and then complains that all the women in his age group are ‘old hags’ forcing the program director to offer him a spot in a younger age group of women between 35 and 50 and he still complains that he would like them ‘even younger than that’, which only goes to prove that there’s always ‘dirty old men’ in every culture no matter where you go.

If you are expecting the film to deal with the oppressive aspects of the communist regime you won’t find it here. Most foreign films, especially those that won awards at the time, usually had this as their running theme, but here it doesn’t even touch on it. Yet I was still able to find traces of it including a scene near the beginning where a couple on a city sidewalk is told by an official that they are showing too much affection. There is another segment where Katia is being interviewed at her job in a factory by a news program. The interviewer exclaims that because Katia has shown signs of being creative that the task of a machine fitter is a ‘perfect’ job for her, which I found funny. She then asks Katia if she will be going to college, so she can get a degree and come right back to the same dreary factory and work as an engineer. I found this to be funny also, but my Russian friend tells me that the title of engineer in her country at the time was a highly regarded position that paid well, even though in America the idea of going to college is so that one can get a good education and not have to work in a factory at any level.

Another part of the film that may confuse American audiences is when Katia finds that she has become pregnant by a man that she is not married to. When she tells him the news he refuses to pay any support and she does not take him to court in order to force him. My friend explained to me that in Russia the single woman will typical not demand support from the man as this is apparently a source of ‘pride’ in their culture although many women here will find that difficult to relate too.

On the technical end the film looks like it was done on a miniscule budget. The color is faded and the images are fuzzy. Everything is filmed in places that show little that is interesting aesthetically. I thought with the word ‘Moscow’ in the title that there should have been more images of the city and scenes done at certain exotic locales to allow the viewer to get familiar with the region. There is a bit too much music. Although it is not in every scene the majority of the film has music going on underneath the conversations almost like a radio playing in the background and in my opinion it gets distracting.

My biggest complaint is that the second half spends too much time focusing on Katia and no one else. The synopsis for the film from several different sources describes this as a story about THREE women, but the by the end it is really only about one. I was disappointed as I found Lyudmila fun and I wanted to see more of her and the third woman, Antonina, is barely shown at all to the point that we get to know little about her.  Katia’s late-blooming romance goes on too long and seems a bit forced. Having her old boyfriend suddenly reappear and try to get back into her life is strained and the fact that he initially didn’t recognize her seemed hard to believe.

The story and scenarios are not original and have to varying degrees been done many times before. Unlike other Russian classics that I’ve liked including Solaris and Stalker this film lacks anything profound and comes off as a typical drama that is passable and entertaining, but not great.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: February 10, 1980

Runtime: 2Hours 22Minutes

Rated NR (Not Rated)

Director: Vladimir Menshov

Studio: Mosfilm

Available: VHS, DVD (Region 1 and 2)

Lost in America (1985)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Living in a winnebago.

            David Howard (Albert Brooks) becomes upset when he doesn’t get his expected promotion and decides the corporate life isn’t for him and that he and his wife Linda (Julie Hagerty) will drop-out by liquidating all of their assets, buying a Winnebago, and roaming the countryside as free-spirits. Things go horribly wrong right from the start when, in a fit of gambling fever, Linda loses their entire savings at the roulette wheel. This forces David and Linda to desperately look for jobs in the first small town they come to.

The concept is fantastic. Who hasn’t dreamed of doing this at one time or another? Reportedly top executives who saw the film admitted having these very same fantasies at some point. In many ways this film is perfect testament to the 80’s where everything seemed to backtrack to the materialism and conformity of past eras and the idealism of the 60’s became lost. Writer-director Brooks plays it in a realistic and believable way with just enough subtle comedy to bring out the absurdity in each situation, which is what makes it fun.  Had the characters been over-the-top it wouldn’t have worked.

The dry, cynical wit that is Brooks’s signature is in full swing here. It may be an acquired taste to some, but it is distinct and hilarious for those that enjoy it. Some of the best moments include David’s funny rant when he tells off his boss and demands that the company give back the eight years he invested into it and won’t leave until it does. There are amusing conversations between David and the casino owner (Gary Marshall in an excellent cameo) where he begs him to give back the money Linda lost as well as his visit to an employment agency. The couple’s argument at the Hoover Dam is another highlight as is his lecture to Linda about the ‘nest egg’ concept. However, the funniest scene that had me literally laughing out of my seat was when David takes a job as a crossing guard for $5.50 an hour and some ten-year-old boys start to mock him. Even the little things, like when David tells a hotel clerk that they did not make reservations because they have ‘dropped-out of society’ and ‘just living for the moment’ is funny when done with Brooks’s impeccable deadpan delivery.

Julie Hagerty is so ingrained in my mind for her appearance in the cult-classic Airplane that I had a hard time adjusting to her here. Initially, when she is shown in the corporate setting and acting as a serious, responsible adult, I felt it didn’t work because I kept expecting her to say, especially with that high-pitched voice of hers, something dippy and spacey like her character in Airplane always did. However, when she gambles away their savings by incessantly screaming out the number twenty-two she is hilarious and when David lectures her afterwards and she looks up at him with that blank, blue-eyed, deer-in-headlights stare, she is perfect and the casting astute.

The opening sequence is probably the only part that doesn’t work. Having a taped audio interview between talk show host Larry King and film critic Rex Reed played over the opening credits is certainly novel, but David’s prolonged, whiny conversation with Linda while in bed is annoying.  A scene involving a conversation between Linda and a co-worker could have been cut. There is also the fact that everything goes downhill too quickly making the viewer feel almost cheated. It would have been nice to have seen them living the hippie lifestyle for a while and then have the problems begin gradually. There could’ve been a lot of great comedy had it been played straight without the irony of the money problem. Either way it’s entertaining, but brief. Hearing the entire rendition of ‘New York, New York’ by Frank Sinatra is worth the price as is the sight of seeing a giant Winnebago driving up a busy, downtown Manhattan street.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: March 15, 1985

Runtime: 1Hour 31Minutes

Rated R (For a Couple of ‘F-Bombs’)

Director: Albert Brooks

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Clowns aren’t for kids.

This is a fun and well-crafted sci-fi satire dealing with outer space aliens that resemble clowns and fly in a spaceship that look like a circus tent. They arrive on earth and begin killing everybody, wrapping them up in a cotton candy like cocoon and storing them in a freezer on their spaceship. When these cocoons become ‘ripe’ they stick a straw into them and suck out their blood.

It’s all a very unique parody on clown culture and those old sci-fi movies from the 50’s. There are shades of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds, and The Blob to name just a few.  Everything is fast paced with an inventive mind set. All those things that were always considered harmless and childlike have been turned into threatening and scary things here and it’s brilliant. The best one is the balloon dog that becomes a vicious barking little beast.

The special effects are outstanding. For a low budget picture this may actually be the best you will find. The circus tent spaceship is impressive especially when it takes off at the end. The popcorn ray guns and the shadow figure of a hungry tyrannosaurus are also good. You got to love the distorted features of clowns that are made to look genuinely frightening where even their bodies are misshapen and grotesque. You start to believe that these are actual creatures and not people inside a costume.

The only drawback is that it was made in the 80’s and is embedded with very bland looking, bland acting teens as the protagonists that seem like cookie cutouts from the genre. It even starts out with the very clichéd scene of having them making out in their parked cars at a secluded, wooded area. Outside of the clowns John Vernon has the only other interesting part. He plays a hardened and slightly corrupt cop who has seen it all and doesn’t fall for anything. He is both edgy and funny and gives the film some added grit. His death scene is good (like most of the others) but it would have been nice had he been able to carry the picture.

Overall this is clever and creative and sure to click with those possessed with a warped sense of humor.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: May 27, 1988

Runtime: 1Hour 28Minutes

Rated: PG-13

Director: Stephan Chiodo

Studio: Trans World Entertainment

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

The Blues Brothers (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: A mission from God.

Jake (John Belushi) is released from jail and joins his brother Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) in starting up their old band so as to raise money for their old orphanage. Trying to get the members back proves harder than they thought, but because they are ‘on a mission from God’ nothing deters them including having every police agency in the state (and various other riff-raff) on their tail.

If you take away the songs and the extended car chases you have only 20 minutes of actual comedy and even then it is not real hilarious just amusing. Sometimes it gets downright silly like an old Disney movie with no edginess or satire. There isn’t even the expected crudeness or sophmorics and having this thing rated ‘R’ is ridiculous.

For such a simple comedy it is well staged almost like a grand scale spectacle. The stunts are spectacular and at certain times breathtaking. Director John Landis seems to have shut down the whole city of Chicago to do it and it definitely set a new standard for car chases.

Some of it makes you grab the edge of your seat especially when you see in fast motion, from their viewpoint, careening down the street as they dodge cars and pedestrians that seem to pop up at you. It also helps the validity to have them run into some road construction because in Chicago that’s pretty much all you see. I lived there for 18 years and the saying they have is that there are two seasons ‘winter and road construction’. Yet it would have been nice to see them wearing their seatbelts! Anyone else would have been killed or injured with any number of things they do and this thought takes away from some of the fun. It also would have helped the plausibility to have a couple of the bullets shot at them at least hit the car. There is a scene where over a hundred different policemen shoot at the car and not even one hits it!

The songs are great and it’s more of a musical anyways. There is a nice emphasis on the blues that bring out a distinct Chicago flavor. Cab Calloway is terrific doing his famous rendition of ‘Minnie the Moocher’ while the Blues Band plays along dressed like a 1920’s swing band. The numbers done by the Blues Brothers themselves is the most rousing as they guys can really sing! Their rendition of ‘Rawhide’ is hilarious.

Kathleen Freeman has probably the funniest part in a nifty send up of those Catholic school nuns that loved to use a ruler as a disciplinary tool. Carrie Fisher is engaging as a jilted bride out for revenge as she always did have a very ‘Don’t mess with me’ look in her eyes even when she was doing Star Wars. Henry Gibson shows his usual sinister style as the head of the local Nazi party and yet it is Aykroyd who is the real star as he is at his deadpan best throughout.

Look quickly for Paul “Pee Wee Herman” Ruebens as a French waiter. Also the DVD version has 18 minutes of extra footage.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released; June 20, 1980

Runtime: 2Hours 13Minutes

Rated R

Director: John Landis

Studio: Universal

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video

Maniac (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: He wants their hair.

A loner (Joe Spinell) terrorizes New York City by killing young women and scalping them. He then takes their hair, brings it home, and places it (actually he nails it) onto the heads of some mannequins that he has.

In a lot of ways this is the same old mechanical slasher flick as it has all the predictable characteristics of the others that dominated the early 80’s. The story is simple and strung along by long, drawn-out murder sequences. There is some suspense, but it is minimal since we know exactly what is going to happen. The victims are young, good looking women, who are clueless to the dangers that are lurking until it is too late. One segment in particular features a nurse getting off of work late at night, who mentions her fear of the killer and yet for some reason she still foolishly refuses a ride home from her friend and instead walks down a dark, lonely street and into, of course, eventual carnage.

There are also some rather glaring technical errors. One features a woman (the same one who refused a ride) running from the killer by going into an empty subway. Although isolation is the whole factor here there is one shot, taken from inside a departing subway car that clearly shows a whole bunch of people standing just across from her on the other side of the tracks. There is also a segment where Spinell takes his girlfriend to his mother’s grave. When the car pulls up to the cemetery it is a nice, bright afternoon, but when they reach the actual grave it has become pitch black with a strange unexplained fog that has rolled in. Lastly there is the ending. This is a man that has terrorized a whole city and yet only two policemen in an unmarked squad car come to his residence and when they do they don’t even bother to secure the site.

Despite the low-budget problems there are a few things that raise this slightly above the rest. One is the fact that it actually manages to get inside the killer’s head. You hear the inner conversations between his ‘good’ side and his ‘bad’ side. Of course this only touches the surface of a true schizoid personality, but it does offer a little more depth than most. It also helps create a good portrait of a tormented soul and you end up feeling more sadness than fear for the man. The film also consistently has a dark, grainy look, which helps accentuate the ugly theme. Having it take place in New York City gives it a little more distinction and atmosphere.

The special effects are good. The part where he blows a man’s head off, through a car windshield, looks very realistic and has become the film’s most famous scene. The surreal ending, where the mannequins all come to life and exact a sort of revenge, is also well-handled and imaginative. Makeup artist Tom Savini, who also appears as the character of ‘Disco Boy’, has had a lot of success, but the stuff here may be his best.

Director William Lustig shows some panache and Spinell, who also co-wrote the screenplay, gives a surprisingly strong performance, but their attempts at creating a better understanding of a crazed killer prove placid and simply done for shock value.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: December 26, 1980

Runtime: 1Hour 27Minutes

Not Rated (Graphic Violence, Brief Nudity, Language, Adult Theme)

Director: William Lustig

Studio: Magnum Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray (30th Anniversary Edition)

The Gong Show Movie (1980)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Jaye P. Morgan topless.

A very fractured, offbeat look at game show host Chuck Barris and his trials and tribulations as producer and host of the hit 70’s game show ‘The Gong Show’. In between there are some very short snippets of acts that never made it past the network censor. If you are unfamiliar with the show it featured three B-celebrities, usually Jamie Farr, Artie Johnson, and Jaye P. Morgan, who would watch talent acts performed by amateurs. The acts were usually done in the comic and absurd vein and could include anything from singing, dancing, or stand-up comedy. If they were really bad the celebrities would get out of their seats and bang a big gong that was behind them, which would have the performer thrown off. If the participant avoided being gonged they would then have the potential of winning a monetary prize at the end.

If you were not a fan of the show then you probably won’t be a fan of this movie either. If you were a fan you still might not like it because Barris acts consistently embarrassed by his creation and seems to want to disown it.

The film lacks cohesion. It mixes absurdity with surrealism and even trashy segments thrown in for good measure. The quirky bits are forced and the ‘hilarious’ dialogue is just plain stupid. There is also too many scenes involving a stuffy, uptight network boss who is so over- the-top clichéd that he becomes annoying.

Barris never seemed completely cut out for a game show host and even less as a leading man. He has no charisma and  spends the whole time moping around. He comes off as very burdened making you wonder if his stories about being a part-time CIA hit man were true. Either way he is not an engaging centerpiece for a movie. It would have been better had it broadened out and shown more of “The Gong Show” cast especially Jaye P. Morgan who is as raunchy as ever in the few scenes that she is in including her topless part!

The show always had a unique and perverse brilliance, which comes out every time it features one of the acts from the show making me feel that using this simply as a highlight reel of all of the best and most outrageous acts would have been a better idea. The ones that they show aren’t bad, but they are cut pretty short. A few of the ones that I liked featured two teenaged girls performing fellatio with their popsicles. Another one has three men standing at a urinal and making music with their zippers until one of their zippers gets caught! There is also two obese Siamese twins singing the Captain and Tennille hit ‘Love Will Keep Us Together’.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: May 23, 1980

Runtime: 1Hour 29Minutes

Rated R (Language, Brief Nudity, Raunchy Humor)

Director: Chuck Barris

Studio: Universal

Available: None

Still of the Night (1982)

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: This teddy bear bleeds.

Successful psychiatrist Sam Rice (Roy Scheider) finds himself immersed in a tangled web of murder and deceit. One of his patients, wealthy art dealer George Bynum (Josef Sommar), is found murdered. A mysterious woman named Brooke Reynolds (Meryl Streep) visits him and states that she was George’s mistress and Sam suspects that she may be the killer. He tries to do his own investigation, but the police start to doggedly tail him thinking he may know more than what he is letting on.

This was yet another homage to Alfred Hitchcock, this time done by writer/director Robert Benton, who is an excellent filmmaker in his own right.  This one has all of the style, but none of the substance.  The concept is slickly handled, but it misses Hitch’s flair as well as his wry sense of humor.

Normally I have never been too impressed with Scheider as a leading man.  He has always seemed transparent and his range of characters as well as emotions that he can convey are limited. Here though, as an evasive middle-man, his acting abilities work quite well and I actually found him perfect for the part.

Streep does not fare as well.  Her acting is almost always impressive and I admire her prolific career, but this is one of her few roles that takes no advantage of her talents. She seems to have an almost ghost-like presence. I didn’t find her character to be compelling, nor intriguing. I had no interest in her fate nor her relationship with Rice.

Joe Grifasi was a poor choice as the lead investigator Joseph Vitucci. He showed none of the characteristics of a seasoned police detective and looked and acted more like a disheveled kid just out of college. The rest of the supporting cast is dull and cardboard. It would have been nice if one eccentric character had been put in to liven things up.

Probably the most interesting aspect of the whole movie is a nightmare segment that the George character has that comes in the middle of the story. I liked some of the creepy imagery that was used including a bleeding stuffed teddy bear. I also enjoyed how afterwards Sam debates the dreams meaning with his mother Grace (Jessica Tandy) who also has a background in psychology, but I thought it was a bit of a stretch when she suggests he go to the police about it as dreams can be interpreted in many different ways and hold no relevancy in a court of law. I thought it became even more far-fetched when at the end Sam uses some of the symbolism in the dream to figure out the identity of the killer.

The film has a few plot holes and certain things that just don’t add up.  Some of the ones that hit me was when Brooke talks about seeing George off in a cab that night and then the next morning reading in the papers that he had been murdered, which is preposterous.  Most newspapers go to press between ten and midnight, the dead body might not yet have even been discovered until later that day, or even a few days later. There is also a segment where Sam makes a $15,000 purchase on a painting he doesn’t even want at an auction simply so he can use it as an excuse to write a note on the bidding card warning Brooke that the police are after her. Also, when Sam does not find Brooke at her apartment her friend tells him that she is at her parent’s house in some town called Glen Cove, but she is not sure of the street name and yet Sam is able to find the place in the middle of the night with hardly any effort. Also, I found some of the conversations that George has with Sam during their sessions to be unintentionally funny.

There is enough intrigue to keep you somewhat interested, but the result is mild. I did like the idea of building the tension up through slow subtle means instead of the quick shocks that you see done in a modern suspense movie, but it is still slow going. The music played over the opening credits is more suited for a romance and does nothing to create the right mood for a thriller. The lighting in literally every shot is dark and shadowy, which certainly helps with the atmosphere, but after a while it gets to be too much. I was also not impressed with the climactic sequence. The protagonist is too helpless and defenseless and does not fight back, which severely limits the action. Having it occur at an ocean-side house does create a nice ambience, but the chase that is involved there could have been more extended and the camerawork during the segment is unimaginative.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: November 19, 1982

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Robert Benton

Studio: MGM/UA

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Happy Birthday to Me (1981)

happy2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: This birthday isn’t happy.

            Virignia Wainwright (Melissa Sue Anderson) attends a private school where she is a part of a snotty clique whose members start getting killed off just before her 18th birthday. Due to a freak accident suffered years before she has blackouts causing suspicions that she may be the culprit. With the help of her psychiatrist Dr. David Faraday (Glenn Ford) they try to come up with some answers.

Despite being listed as a slasher film and having gained a loyal cult following I found the gore factor to be disappointing. The killings are quite brief and the camera quickly cuts away before much blood, or anything else is shown. The famous shish kebab murder that is captured on the film’s poster is poorly executed. Apparently there was more footage of the killings, but in order to get an R-rating director J. Lee Thompson was forced to cut a lot of it out. However, it would be nice to get a director’s cut version as I am sure today’s horror fans may feel cheated otherwise. The grossest sequence for me wasn’t the killings at all, but instead the scene where Virginia undergoes brain surgery and her skull is vividly cut open and one can see the brain pulsating and expanding inside. The deaths really didn’t seem all that creative and clever despite the film’s reputation and if anything my favorite death scene didn’t involve one of the killings but instead was the part where Virginia and her mother are riding in a car that goes off a bridge and then fills up with water, which is surprisingly intense.

I also had some major issues with the film’s opening murder that features a young girl getting strangled while inside her car. For one thing the killer’s hands didn’t seem to be all that tight around her neck and when the girl manages to escape there are no marks around her neck even though realistically there should be. Also, when she escapes she runs for only a few feet and then stops behind a nearby parked car and acts like she is now ‘safe’ even though most people would run several blocks and probably wouldn’t stop until they found someone else that could help, or the police. The victim also speaks, but if someone has been strangled as severely as she has her voice would have to be effected by it and she might not be able to say anything, or at least speak in a very raspy tone, which is not the case here.

For the most part I found the film to be boring and predictable. I never once got scared, or even all that intrigued. The movie is jammed with every cheesy 80’s horror movie cliché that you can think of. Normally film’s from this genre run no more than 90 minutes and sometimes even less. Going 110 minutes as this one does is much too long for a plot that is paper-thin.  However, the very macabre ending is excellent and almost makes up for it. The surprise twist isn’t bad either although a bit implausible.

Anderson, best known as Mary Ingals from the long running TV-show ‘Little House on the Prairie’, isn’t bad. A shot of her at the end where she is carrying a birthday cake and looks up and smiles is both chilling and sexy and quite possibly the film’s pinnacle. There is no nudity although director Thompson teases the viewer by having her undress to get into the shower, but the camera never gets past her bra and panties.

Hollywood icon Ford is wasted and his tired appearance is almost sad. His wardrobe features him wearing an open shirt showing his bare chest and it looks ridiculous for a man his age. There is another scene where the police dig up a skull on the school’s grounds and the Ford character asks to take a look at it and the police promptly hand it over to him, which I found to be equally ridiculous as that is a crucial piece of evidence that would only be handled by a forensic expert.

If anything Sharon Acker as Virginia’s alcoholic mother Estelle gives the best performance.  Her overwrought slightly hammy scene near the end gives the film some much needed energy.

There were a few other loopholes and inconsistencies that irritated me enough to be mentioned here. One is that years earlier Virginia had a birthday party and all her friend’s snubbed her and didn’t show up, so they could instead go to a party held by a girl who was more wealthy and popular, which made me wonder why then would Virginia want to remain friends with them like she did.  Another part involves a member of their clique named Alfred (Jack Blum) who the girls initially think is storing the severed head of one of their murdered friends. They later realize that this was simply a realistic looking plastic mold that he had made to resemble her, which makes them feel ‘relieved’ enough to continue to socialize with him. However, anyone who makes plastic molds of heads from someone they know that has just been killed seems just as creepy to me and enough to make most normal people concerned, which the characters here are not. There is also no explanation at the end for how the killer, whose identity I will not divulge, was able to come up with such an elaborate and realistic disguise. The gory effects are also not convincing and could have used Tom Savini’s help

Like I said I found the film’s ending to be pretty cool and enough for me to suggest this film to horror fans, but only if they are willing to stick around for it.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: May 15, 1981

Runtime: 1Hour 50Minutes

Rated R (Violence, Language, Adult Theme)

Director: J. Lee Thompson

Studio: Columbia

Available: VHS, DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987)

planes

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Thanksgiving on the road.

This movie’s plot, which is threadbare , deals with a middle-aged businessman named Neal Page (Steve Martin) who is trying desperately to get home to Chicago to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with his family. During his trip he inadvertently meets Del Griffith (John Candy) an overweight, slightly obnoxious shower curtain hanger salesman. Neal initially cannot stand the man, but is forced to sit with him through his plane flight when he is not able to get the first class seat that he had reserved. Unfortunately due to a snowstorm their flight is rerouted to Wichita, Kansas and the two men find themselves paired together again as they try any means of transportation possible to get themselves to the Windy City. Along the way they begrudgingly start up a friendship.

Martin is okay as the exasperated businessman. This film marked a transition for him as he was now moving away from roles where he played clownish, vapid, but lovable idiots and more into crusty and curmudgeon middle-aged men. He is basically used for his annoyed reactions at all of Candy’s crazy antics and for that part he is fine, but there are a wide assortment of other actors that could have played the part just as well if not better. Martin at times still goes back to some of his old shtick like the dopey way he puts on a clenched teeth grin when he is trying to run real fast, which I never found to be particularly funny when he was doing it way back with skits on Saturday Night Live and still don’t find it funny when he continues to do it now.

Candy is by far the best thing about the film and ends up saving the movie from being an uninspired, goofy mess. The character does at times border on being a caricature, but fortunately writer-director John Hughes pulls back just enough to let you see him as a real person. He does indeed have some laugh-out-loud moments. I chuckled at the way he tries to clear his throat when the two men are stuck in a motel room together. The part where he manages to get both his coat sleeves stuck on some car seat levers and he is forced to drive the car with his two legs is hilarious. I also liked the way he gyrates to a Ray Charles song that he listens to while driving and the conversation that he has with a policeman (Michael Mckean) when their burned out shell of a car gets pulled over is a classic.  I thought the idea of having him be a salesman for shower curtain hangers hit just the right note of absurdity and the fact that he carries around a little box displaying all the different types of hangers he has was novel. The only thing I didn’t like about the character is that at the end we find out that he is somehow rendered homeless simply because his wife died 8 years before. This doesn’t make a lot of sense, for one thing he seemed to have a lot of success selling his merchandise, so I’m sure he had money and for another thing there are many men and women whose spouses end up dying, but that doesn’t mean they no longer have a home to go to. To me it just ends up being a cheap excuse for a sloppy sentiment and it should have been avoided.

The late John Hughes’s writing and directing leaves a lot to be desired especially for the sophisticated viewer. The humor that is used is extremely broad and many times downright cartoonish. He seems to be either not confident in himself as a filmmaker, or in the intelligence of his audience to ever be subtle and subdued, but it would have been nice if a little bit of that had been thrown in. He also uses way too many poor plot devices that are simply used to propel the paper-thin story along and would be considered hack writing at most and something that a third grader could come up with. For instance why does the engine of train that the two men are riding in suddenly break down? No logical explanation is given and what are the odds of that happening as well as having Neal’s rental car missing when all the rest of the cars are there. There is also the cab driver named Wolf who decorates his cab with all sorts of pornographic pictures and other provocative ornaments, which is at first funny until you realize that he supposedly works in Wichita, which is a small conservative city and no one would be riding his cab for long and he would be out of business. If there is no truth to the joke then the joke will fail, which it does here. The same goes for the crude, gross, and very hick pick-up truck driver that relies way too heavily on stereotypes and seems to be put in solely as filler.

I did like the fact that it was filmed on-location as the stark wintry like landscapes does indeed put the viewer in the holiday frame of mind. I also liked the fact that for the most part real snow is used. I was born and raised in Minnesota and I can spot the fake stuff right away and I always find it annoying. I liked that many performers from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off appear in brief cameos including: Ben Stein and Edie McClurg although it would have been nice if they were given a little more to do. Kevin Bacon also appears as does William Windom who is amusing as a one of Neal’s clients who can’t decide on what photo layout to use. I was disappointed that he wasn’t given any lines of dialogue, but the fact that he does reappear at the very end after the credits  makes up for it a bit. I also must mention the burned-out skeleton car that the two men drive in, which is the damnedest looking thing since the bus filled with bullet holes in The Gauntlet.

The music score is awful. It has too much of that tinny, synthesized 80’s sound that is unoriginal and does not fit the mood, or tone of the picture in any way. It also gets overplayed in certain scenes and hurts the film’s overall enjoyment.

I would say this movie would be great for the whole family as it does rely a lot on the broad, fast paced humor that most kids love. However, there is one scene where Martin goes into a long, F-word laden rant with McClurg when he can’t find his rental car. The rant in itself is funny, but some might say it is not appropriate for children. Of course these days I have heard kids as young as six, or seven using the word and I have also heard it used just in casual conversation by people I pass by while walking the streets of Indianapolis, so trying to shield the child from it may be futile and they will all sooner or later hear it in abundance anyways.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: November 25, 1987

Runtime: 1Hour 33Minutes

Rated PG: (Adult Language, Crude Humor)

Director: John Hughes

Studio: Paramount

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video