Jinnistan wrote:

But what was 1984 film culture in your canuck of the woods?

I wasn't really living too much in the present in 1984. When it came to movies, I wasn't really brought to the theater all that much, so it was just about what I could find on television. And I would watch literally any movie that came on at 8 o clock, usually on local stations, or one that we got out of Buffalo. And, obviously because they were on TV, they were usually older films.

The present always kept itself slightly blurred.

At the time they were released, I would have been aware of nearly none of the films you mentioned. I only became familiar with the ones I did eventually recognize (at least their posters), going to video stores in the years after 84. And it was through getting a VCR where I kind of activated and became a part of the modern world. Which would have been probably 85, more than 84. Maybe even 86.
 

crumbsroom wrote:

I wasn't really living too much in the present in 1984. When it came to movies, I wasn't really brought to the theater all that much, so it was just about what I could find on television. And I would watch literally any movie that came on at 8 o clock, usually on local stations, or one that we got out of Buffalo. And, obviously because they were on TV, they were usually older films.

I only became familiar with the ones I did eventually recognize (at least their posters), going to video stores in the years after 84. And it was through getting a VCR where I kind of activated and became a part of the modern world. Which would have been probably 85, more than 84. Maybe even 86.

I see.  So there is a difference in that I was able to have afternoon matinees (usually in the summers especially) that provided me with a theater experience that we don't share.  I'm not sure if you ever had the less ideal drive-in deal, which I also experienced and quickly decided was not my preference.  I didn't mind TV, but even watching movies on TV, I could see a qualitative distinction between films and TV shows.  I very early on was inclined to feature films rather than episodic dramas, for example.  I wasn't averse to enjoying a number of TV shows, but I did make the distinction that there was a higher quality in movies that I was attracted to.

Jinnistan wrote:

This film forbodes the rest of the decade's jingoistic negation of the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era made by a bunch of bros who though the last 15 minutes were the best part of First Blood while ignoring all of the necessary build-up which puts this resentment into emotional context.  "Emotional context" is certainly not a phrase that was uttered on the set of Missing in Action, a gross and gauche retread of the much more involving Uncommon Valor from the previous year.  It follows in the macho renaissance of glamorized consequenceless violence and virile vanity.  The sequel - actually a prequel - set in vintage Vietnam, was intended to be released first, but this was rushed out to pre-empt Rambo six months later.  Missing in Action II was the superior film simply for being a straight-forward action film without its predecessor's offensive and far less honest attempts to rewrite history.

Rewatched this. The sneaking around scenes are hilariously terrible. That being said, once M. Emmet Walsh shows up, it becomes a good time, and there was enough shootin' and 'splodin' that I got my money's worth of cheap thrills.

Rampop II wrote:

Killing Fields is my personal most horrifying film experience. I mean, my god. That shit is harrowing. I grew up on horror movies, and the scariest movies I've ever seen are not horror movies.

The documentary Art of Killing, about 1960s Indonesian massacres, should be right up your alley.

Rock wrote:

...once M. Emmet Walsh shows up...

Wait, am I the last to find out that M. Emmet Walsh died back in March??? Age 88. I wonder if three months is too late for a belated Morgue entry. 


"Suck my toes!!!"