Quick Thoughts – July Round-Up, Part 1 of 2

‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ (1930)

Of all the armed conflicts in human history, perhaps none was more senselessly brutal than World War I.  Early 20th Century Europe was a powder keg waiting for one good spark, and when it came, the continent (and beyond) was plunged into darkness for four long years.  Worse yet, the battlefields and high seas were the most violent Petri dishes imaginable, as aging military tactics met groundbreaking new technology: airplanes, submarines, tanks, chemical gas; pretty much anything that could be weaponized was put to such use.

Based on the seminal novel by Erich Maria Remarque, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ is an equally important motion picture, as it captures the madness of “The Great War” from the level of the common soldier; from enlistment, to training, to combat, to back home, and, ultimately, to death.

It doesn’t seem logical that a film made four score and six years ago about a war that happened a century ago would feel at all contemporary, yet ‘All Quiet’ somehow manages to do just that.  The battle scenes, though not filled with the blood and gore we’re accustomed to now, are as harrowing as can be.  What I find even more striking, however, are the characters and their conversations, trying to simultaneously hold onto their humanity while also numbing themselves in order to be effective.  If you’ve seen ‘Fury‘ or ‘American Sniper‘ in recent years, you can draw lines back to ‘All Quiet’.

If I have one major criticism, it’s that you feel the movie’s length (it runs over two hours) and sometimes scenes don’t quite flow together, but given how long ago it was produced, that can be forgiven.

There’s little doubt that this is an all-time great film that everyone should see at least once.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

‘Top Gun’ (1986)

When people ask me what my favorite arthouse film is, I always say it’s the first few minutes of ‘Top Gun’, before “Highway to the Danger Zone” comes in, because it’s nothing but a bunch of long, gorgeous “magic hour” shots of flight deck operations aboard the USS Enterprise, set to that beautifully ambient Harold Faltermeyer score.  Really, until Mr. Loggins comes storming in, my brain tells me this is going to be one of the best movies I’ve ever seen, but then reality eventually sets in, and I retreat to a place of disappointment.

That’s right.  ‘Top Gun’, that awesome movie you loved when you were a kid, is actually terrible.  In fact, by and large, if there aren’t airplanes, Tom Skerritt, or Michael Ironside on the screen, the movie’s a hot mess: the script is bad, the story is dumbed-down, and the romantic sub-plot is horrendous and needlessly log-jammed into the middle of the film.  It’s bad.  It’s a bad movie.

Now, that’s not to say it’s totally irredeemable, because F-14s are awesome, and F-14s taking on other fighter jets are even more awesome, but all that action doesn’t quite make up for the fact that almost every other element is cringe-worthy.

Basically, ‘Top Gun’ is the kind of movie you put on and fast forward through all the boring parts.  There’s absolutely no need to spend all 110 minutes watching the whole thing.

Rating: ★★½

 

‘Risky Business’ (1983)

‘Risky Business’ is another movie I throw in the Overrated bin.  Not unlike ‘Beverly Hills Cop‘, this film lives in the muddled middle: not funny enough to be an effective comedy, and not intense enough to be a cool high school crime drama.

Frankly, the movie is sophomoric, and I get that as a high school story maybe it should be that, but what I really mean is at certain points it feels like it was made by an actual 10th grader.  Perhaps the ultimate example of this is when Joel and Lana (Tom Cruise and Rebecca De Mornay) are attempting to get intimate on a Chicago “L” train and the soundtrack is blasting Phil Collins’ “In the Air Tonight”; it’s just such a poor creative choice that made me hate the movie in that moment.

However, there is some good work here, especially the Tangerine Dream score, but not enough for me to recommend the movie outright.  Stick to ‘Ferris Bueller’ if you’re looking for a Chicago-area high schooler wish fulfillment movie.

Rating: ★★½

Quick Thoughts – Spring Round-Up

Someday I won’t be writing these posts months after the fact, but, for now, we press on.

‘Big Trouble in Little China’ (1986)

Sure, technically speaking, ‘Ghostbusters 2′ is the sequel to ‘Ghost Busters‘, but ‘Big Trouble in Little China’ isn’t exactly far off.  The tone is similar, the stakes are about the same, and the proportion of comedy to horror is almost equal.  The one major difference is John Carpenter was moving from horror into comedy whereas Ivan Reitman was moving from comedy into horror.

Point is, you’ve got Awesome Mode Kurt Russell as a fish-out-of-water on a great adventure against some dark Chinese magic.  Throw in a diverse supporting cast (including, but not limited to, the ever-wonderful James Hong, as well as Kim Cattrall at peak loveliness) and some classic 80s special effects (led by Richard Edlund, whose team also did ‘Ghost Busters’), and you’ve got a recipe for a good time.  I also think it might be the first Western production to make use of Chinese wire-fighting techniques, but I can’t confirm that.

If you still haven’t seen this one, I understand your trepidation.  It took me a while to take the plunge on it, but, trust me, it’s more than worth your time.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Vigilante

‘Vigilante’ (1983)

I have to admit, I’m not sure how highly I’d rate this one if I hadn’t seen it complete with a Q&A session with both the director “Bill” Lustig and former NYPD detective turned all-around movie guy Randy Jurgensen, but they helped me put the film in its proper context, and hopefully I can do the same for you.

On the surface, William Lustig’s ‘Vigilante’ is a poor man’s ‘Death Wish‘, as evidenced by the inexplicably multi-racial gang members, but, more than that, it’s essentially a cinematic cartoon of New York Post headlines from the late-70s and early-80s.  Many events and characters have some basis in reality (including the judge, who was based on Bruce McMarion Wright, aka “Turn ‘Em Loose Bruce”).

Just as a movie though, ‘Vigilante’ is a solid enough exploitation revenge film.  Robert Forster brings his unique everyman quality to a character pushed to the limit by violence against his family, and Fred Williamson brings his imposing screen presence (and perfectly manicured beard, of which I am jealous) as a man who’s long decided he’s not going to take it anymore.

Perhaps what’s most interesting about ‘Vigilante’, like many movies of its era, is simply New York City as a location.  It really is like another character on screen.

Other than that, it’s pretty standard fare.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

P.S.
One note of particular interest from Bill Lustig was that when the film got distribution in countries with oppressive governments (including Brazil and the Philippines, which were under dictatorships at the time), there had to be a title card inserted at the end of the film stating that the vigilante was brought to justice himself.  This reminded me of the end of ‘Blood Debts‘, famously highlighted by Red Letter Media, in which a similar title card exists, no doubt because it was a 1985 Filipino production.

 

Alien + Aliens

‘Alien’ (1979) + ‘Aliens’ (1986)

I’ve heard people accuse me of not being very festive, and I don’t know where they get the notion; you have to be pretty festive to go see ‘Back to the Future 2‘ on October 21, 2015, or go to an ‘Alien’ double feature on 4/26 while sitting in seat 426, but I digress.

I’ve been familiar with ‘Alien’ at minimum since I watched it to prepare myself for ‘Prometheus’, but obviously it’s a different animal on the big screen  As I’ve said on many occasions, I’m not a big horror guy, but ‘Alien’ is transcendent, thanks largely to its hard sci-fi base.  To say it’s a great looking movie is an understatement; everything has substance, everything feels lived-in, and it’s all in service of what is essentially a blue collar sci-fi story, which is rather uncommon.

What also helps ‘Alien’ in its effectiveness is its small cast (not unlike ‘Predator‘ in that regard).  The low number of space truckers and focus on their daily grind ensures we get to know them all pretty well, not to mention a good bit of improvised dialogue in group settings.  Sure, it becomes a bit of a haunted house movie in the final act, but between the limitations they had in 1979 and the groundbreaking design of the alien monster, I’m not taking points off for that.

All-in-all, the movie is a timeless classic.

Now, ‘Aliens’ I had never seen before, on any sort of screen.  We can debate til the end of time which movie of the two is better, but one thing for certain is that they are different.

‘Aliens’, like most great sequels, builds upon and expands the world we already know, and in this case switches up the genre as well, adding in a whole mess load of action thanks to our friendly neighborhood space marines.  James Cameron was correct in keeping the visual aesthetics of the first movie while also adding his own signature touches and new bits of lore (like the M41A Pulse Rifle and the Alien Queen).  It’s a fairly unique watch in terms of the simultaneous level of action and terror.

Of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the true thread holding these films together, that being Sigourney Weaver.  Her portrayal of Ripley is nearly flawless (although I like her hair better in ‘Alien’, but that’s superficial).

Ultimately, both ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ are must-see,  Whether you prefer more slow-moving hard sci-fi or futuristic action will likely determine which you think is better, but, personally, I don’t feel compelled to choose.

Ratings:
‘Alien’ ★★★★☆
‘Aliens’ ★★★★☆

P.S.
Shout out to NECA Toys for showing off some wares and doing some giveaways before each movie.

Alien Toys 5

Alien Toys 4

Alien Toys 3

Alien Toys 2

Alien Toys 1