Change Your Image
Randy-55
Reviews
Stargate (1994)
Why didn't they just show the first 20 minutes.
The first twenty minutes of this movie were extremely promising. Then the whole thing fell apart and seemed like a 'prequel' to 'Independence Day'. I would like to thank our Swedish contributor. I don't speak Swedish and thought that the language used was another 'made up' language that is used in 'alien' films. It's most annoying that these languages are always spoken in sharp, short bursts which have no flow. Why Swedish? If one is going to use an alien language, just make it up or find a language which is less-known. Viveca Lindfors was sadly wasted as were the other actors in the beginning of the film. They just disappeared. I would have much rather seen a movie about Lindfors life from the first discovery of the Stargate. I wonder if she was the Swedish coach? The premise was interesting but the behavior on the 'parallel' world was ridiculous. The cliches flew quick and fast. James Spaders falls in love with dusky native maiden. How many times has this 'instant cross cultural love' been used? What is really offensive about this plot device is that 99% of the time, it's always a white MALE who gets the 'native'.
The other cliches were just as bad. When a problem can't be solved, the Americans 'get out the guns'. Guns solve everything. (I am an American.) Jaye Davidson was very good in 'The Crying Game', but his character in 'Stargate' was as weak as the plot and gave no sense of the immense power he was supposed to wield. James Spader was, in my opinion, playing the 'cliche' genius, with a lot of little 'absent-minded' mannerisms which were supposed to make him 'cute'. I didn't mind his hair. Kurt Russell was another cliche. The way to bring him back from a deep and suicidal depression was to send him out on a mission.Then he gets to kill a lot of people, which makes him feel much better. Something that the army would never risk. In the process,he finds a surrogate son in the Bedouin boy. Give us a break!
The Last Seduction (1994)
One Could Drive a Truck through the Holes in the Plot.
This film comes off sharp and clever on first viewing. But our local cable station plays it often. The more times one sees it, the more the holes in the plot are obvious. Every character is written 'dumb' to Fiorentino's 'smart'. One big example. A private detective is hired to keep her under surveillance. He knows she's dangerous. She offers him cookies. He's so dumb and gluttonous, he actually eats them.
Then she goes off in a taxi to do her nefarious deeds. She has punctured the taxi driver's tire, so he can't follow her. What's dumb? Even I got a view of the name of the color of the taxi.
Why didn't the dumb detective, who knew her address, just get in touch with the taxi company, find out which driver had picked her up at that address at that time and find out where she'd gone from the driver? Not only are the characters 'written dumb' but the writers think the audiences are stupid. That's just one of many many holes in the plot of this not 'evil' but rather 'mean-spirited' movie.
Philadelphia (1993)
It had to be made
'Philadelphia' is a film that needed and had to be made. Such a large budget production with major stars in the lead roles as gay men led to a great deal of compromising. I suppose this was a 'necessary evil.'
The film and arts community is quite familiar with homosexuality and with the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. This film is, therefore, more about homosexuality than it is about AIDS. We have had many many films devoted to people with AIDS but when dealing with both subjects (homosexuality and AIDS) a different light is cast on both.
Whether it is because people think of homosexuals being responsible for AIDS or they just feel uncomfortable with homosexuality is debatable.
This movie could have been about a homosexual being fired from a job and it would not have had the same resonance. There is a bit of 'pity the homosexual with AIDS' atmosphere to the film.
The two subjects are related (in some people's minds). But now that AIDS is affecting the general population, the relation can and maybe should be severed.
This movie never really tells us if Tom Hanks employer is prejudiced against homosexuals, people with AIDS or both.
So, one may watch the movie and separate viewpoints. Is it about a homosexual having problems, an AIDS patient having problems or both?
This is the very frustrating part of this film. That the performers in this film felt a 'duty' to make it is a bit too obvious. That the backers of the film are a bit squeamish is also very obvious. There are no real 'love scenes ' or anything to offend sensitive Tom Hanks or Antonio Banderas fans watching the film. I'm sure that the backers were afraid of driving away their audience with too much realism on the subject.
Aside from these obvious faults, the film's production values and acting are faultless. The casting of Mary Steenburgen as the attorney for the opposition was inspired. At one point, she says 'I hate this case.' One wonders why she took it then. But her courtroom demeanor as a gentle yet insidious advocate for the bigots should have won her an oscar. Tom Hanks description of opera to Denzel Washington was a true pice of virtuoso acting. And the writers were (or were not) smart enough not to have given Joanne Woodward more scenes. Every time she appears on screen, it's as if a spotlight is on her alone. This is not done intentionally by Woodward or the director. She is a natural phenomenon and one of America's most underrated actresses. The film is worth seeing for her two (relatively small) scenes alone.
Top Gun (1986)
The Mysteries of Male Bonding
I noticed that other commentors spoke disparately about the film alternately being about and not being about flying and pilots. As I like aviation but know nothing about flying, I'll have to go with those who say it is not about flying. The movie doesn't deal with male-female relationships either.
The main female interest in this movie is alternately 'more of an antagonist' and 'in the way' than she is a romantic interest. Kelly MacGillis(sic!), the supposed romantic interest, is immediately a threat to the men's egos and their interpersonal relationships. She could have not been in this movie at all and the plot would have not suffered. It seems that she was mainly put there to reassure audience members who might have thought that there was an undercurrent of homosexuality in this movie. So, she is cast as Tom Cruise's 'sex interest' to show audiences that he is interested in women. The movie is basically about male bonding and relationships which men develop when in competition with each other and at the same time having to work together as a team. 'Male bonding' is 'newspeak' for the deep love men feel for each other, which has been mystifying women for ages. Not based on sex, it is actually the 'Platonic ideal'. Not necessarily having to do with sex but a true meeting of mind and experience in a male environment. The problem with this movie is it doesn't quite know how to handle this.
I did not believe that the writers and producers really wanted to make a movie about flying but more about the relationships between men.
The whole concept was a bit foggy and the result is this confusing movie. The emotions are all on the most visceral level (in a good sense; no gratuitous intellectualizing.); these guys are a team and they must rely on each other. To develop trust, one must prove one's mettle to the other (often doubting) members of the group. The problem is that the film could have been about Chimpanzee society and made the same point. Of course, it would have not had the same allure with Chimps as it does with a group of young and very handsome men. The men want to be in the same club but must vie for entrance and dominance. Once this is established and everyone is 'in their niche' a sense of 'group identity' and love is the result. This is very evident in the openly sensual and almost 'I want you' looks which the male characters give each other. The pre-stardom Meg Ryan has a tiny role as Tom Cruise's flying partner's wife. She is totally unnecessary to the movie as is Kelly McGillis. Her comment upon the death of goose, 'He loved flying with you', deftly avoids the whole issue. Maverick (Tom Cruise)has been emotionally destroyed by his beloved partner's death. The scriptwriters carefully avoid having Ryan say, 'He loved you', which is obvious. The real chemistry, which is not explored at all, is that between Maverick and 'Ice' (Val Kilmer). Kilmer is the classic 'I don't need anyone' character. In the end, he and Tom Cruise, antagonists from the beginning, end up in a big hug scene. This is not saying that this is a 'gay' movie. But it is pushing buttons in people, which really have nothing to with the supposed 'substance' of the plot at all; flying. This is a vehicle on which the rather confused filmmakers hung their fragmented story of the mysteries of Platonic, yet very real love between men. See it and think about what you're really reacting to.
Arena (1989)
A Perfect Spoof.
Although 'Arena' may have received a very low rating from the 23 people who registered votes, I feel they are missing the point of the film. This film is funny when it is funny and when 'serious', is even funnier.
A deadpan spoof on the many 'martial arts' and modern 'gladiator' movies, 'Arena' is a solid success. Paul Satterfield, looking like a blonde Christopher Reeve, plays the 'hero'. The name of his character, (Steve Armstrong)whose sole wish is to be a 'gladiator', clues us in that this is NOT to be taken seriously. Set on a space station, which has a totally original look, thanks to the imagination and taste of the Italian production designer, the film is well worth seeing for the very 'silliness' which it intentionally portrays. Our hero, Steve, is adopted by a four-armed humanoid, 'Shorty', who misses his wife and 38 children. Beginning by washing dishes, brave yet sensitive Steve is discovered by a real tough young woman ( very sexy in a 'bondage' kinda way)who manages fighters from different galaxies. From that point on, the film is not so much about plot as cleverly spoofing the conventions of this genre. The super-handsome, surprisingly intelligent and gentle 'hunk-hero' is acted to perfection by Paul Satterfield. It's odd, with his looks and build that he hasn't been cast in 'bigger' movies with 'lesser' plots. Much more than a 'space gladiators' movie and with almost no plot, the gags, gorgeous set design and hilarious one liners keep one entertained throughout the whole movie. I think the viewers who gave it such a low rating didn't 'get it'. Clever, funny, beautiful and sometimes exciting.