Beverly Hills Cop. On a technical level, a pretty perfunctory piece of work. But that helps Eddie really pop. Love it. Rewatch it anytime it hits streaming. I know the new one will likely be terrible, but you could play Axel F over a slideshow of Murphy’s career and I’d have a good time.

A pretty funny Burt anecdote is that he supposedly insisted on writing his death scene in In the Name of the King because it was his first. And, uh, the passion does not show onscreen.

Again, I hadn't yet read the Orwell novel at the time - I had just began reading basics from Wells and Verne - but the novel's reputation clearly preceeded it, and I was eager to see any version of what it was all about.  A good indication of being a bit too young to fully absorb it is the fact that I was disappointed that this "sci-fi" film looked so drab and dreary.  I knew what I was watching was important, and I would return to this and other versions of the film as well as the book within the next few years.




I was deeply bored through most of this, and a later adult rewatch didn't improve much.  It's hard not to admire the production detail and all-star cast, but there's not much happening under the surface.  I've been intending to see the more recent Encore cut as a last resort.
 

Dune is obviously a goofy mess, but I love how it looks.

Really liked 2010 when I watched it earlier this year. I really gelled to its warmth and analog FX, and the cast is great. The Junk Filter podcast did a really good episode on Peter Hyams’ sci fi films and made a strong case for this and Outland (which I still need to see),

As far as Crichton’s directorial work goes, I remember finding The Great Train Robbery a good time. I still haven’t seen Westworld. I refuse to watch the HBO series.

Starman has its fans, but I found Bridges’ performance too calculated. I think Kyle Maclachlan or even Arnold would have killed it in the role.

(I know for a fact that I've seen Breakin' II: Electric Boogaloo, but neither the synopsis or the IMDb pics are ringing any specific bells of recognition.)




I might be forgiven for thinking this was another sex comedy or primarily motivated by Janet Jones on the poster, but this is an example where it was actually a pleasant suprise to see that it was less of a comedy than a coming-of-age drama, set in the early '60s, and a typical 'working-class kid gets in good with the local country club' plot with a hint of The Graduate tossed in.  The creative pedigree is respectable, written and directed by Garry Marshall, and Matt Dillon has always been a stronger actor than given credit for.  A film that's ripe for rediscovery.




This film was savagely trashed by critics at the time.  I didn't hate it.  Next to City Heat, it looks absolutely inspired.  But, yes, the film can be dumb and lots of jokes fizzle like flaccid flatulence.  That doesn't mean that it also doesn't occasionally offer some sublime and/or truly ridiculous (in the best sense) moments that make it borderline irresistible.  Probably not a great idea for a Christmas holiday release, but it deserves, if it hasn't already earned, a cult status.




I watched this one, again, in an empty matinee (I honestly really enjoyed this particular environ), because, again, I have a pretty deep affection for lil' Duds, and, as a PG-13, I was hoping more a more ribald than normal sex comedy.  Alas, I would learn that the PG-13 here was more about subject matter - bigamy and graphic details of fertility and pregnancy - rather than explicit sex or nudity.  And on top of that, the film isn't very funny.  Amusing at best.  Dudley tries to maintain two marriages, keeping the twain from meeting, until both wives end up giving birth at the same hospital.  Hijinks ensue and Dudley Moore does manage some of his patented physical comedy.  All in all, it isn't surprising that this film has become more or less forgotten.





This is a much more satisfying comedy.  Although not a sex comedy, Goldie Hawn is someone who is always inherently sexy, and in a refreshing way which never debases her or subjugates her to the men in her films.  And she's also terribly funny, again in such a way where she can pass off bubbly but with a constantly sharp wit to disarm those who try to take advantage.  Some Goldie Hawn films can drown in mediocre mundane pathos, but her best films (Foul Play, Private Benjamin, Death Becomes Her) present her as a superficially helpless but secretly formidable woman.  I would place this film in that camp, above some of her other 80s efforts, and armed with a smart screenplay by Buck Henry, she manages the fish-out-of-water scenario of an everywoman tossed unwittingly into a position as a diplomat for the State Dept (the how of this incredible situation I won't spoil) and embroiled in a Middle East coup.  Since most of the political particulars are fictionalized, I had no issue with the references going over my head, but as it is, the film is a decent, if midbrow, comedy that's as much a parody of how ill-informed Americans are than in the actual political intrigues it sends up.
 

Jinnistan wrote:

Rock wrote:

I still haven’t seen Westworld. I refuse to watch the HBO series.

The film's OK, another example of innovative ideas which both become slightly anachronistic but still contain some deeply relevant contemporary connotations.  As such, I'm not so strongly against the reboot, and I watched several episodes from season one, but the problem is that I started to get the all-too-familiar feeling from these modern mystery-box TV shows where it was obvious that there wasn't an actual master plan at work.  Which as we've seen - from Matrix to Lost to Game of Thrones to the last Star Wars trilogy - is a recipe for some bullshit meta-explanation for why you're disappointed. 

I feel like a good chunk of modern TV spins its wheels when it comes to filling out the season, leading to the kind of story issues you cite. But I also really dislike the prestige TV aesthetic. Shots held way too long, music underlining every single beat so that there’s no possible way you’ll miss the point. It’s overbearing and condescending. From my experience HBO is the worst offender.

I watched The Hotel New Hampshire earlier this year. Yeah… not for me. Although Kinski in a bear suit holds some interest.

Rock wrote:

I watched The Hotel New Hampshire earlier this year. Yeah… not for me. Although Kinski in a bear suit holds some interest.

I didn't catch it until cable in the 2000s, and wasn't really aware of it.  I thought it was a nice discovery then.
 

I love both The Pope of Greenwich Village and Killing Fields so much. Also a couple of my favorite performances ever in them.

Jinnistan wrote:

crumbsroom wrote:

Micky and Maude was one of the first movies I ever rented with my friend on VHS.

I really hope that's not the only film you have memories of here.  I do appreciate how you gravitated towards the blandest of my choices that year though.

There is a surprising number of movies I've never even heard of here. And also a whole lot I kinda remember existing, but not sure why. Then another whole bunch I just have memories of seeing, but that seem like a distant and diseased dream.

I do remember Hotel New Hampshire being a great topic of conversation at my cottage as a child one year though. Lots of family love for the farting dog. And boy did that ever sound like the movie for me.



 

crumbsroom wrote:

There is a surprising number of movies I've never even heard of here. And also a whole lot I kinda remember existing, but not sure why. Then another whole bunch I just have memories of seeing, but that seem like a distant and diseased dream.

It's interesting since we're closer in age than Rock, to determine whatever differences there were between the mainstream middle American film culture that I grew up in and yours.  As an American, I obviously tend to take for granted the orthodoxy of our media culture.  And I'm also either blessed or cursed with a fairly reliable memory.  But what was 1984 film culture in your canuck of the woods?