Change Your Image
tsheehan-86345
Reviews
Agnes of God (1985)
Follows most of the commands for great story telling!
Movie 3 of 1985 and 123 overall in my journey through films of my lifetime.
Opening act is a compelling and interesting mystery. Agnes's lack of memory is plausible and is before the 90's obsession with movies based on identity and memory. In that was "Agnes of God" is ahead of its time.
Interesting parallel where Agnes can't remember having a child. Meanwhile the main character, played by Jane Fonda, visits her mother who has Alzheimer's disease and can't remember her, her own daughter. Excellent acting, I really felt the pain of the scene. The parallel between Agnes and Fonda's character, Dr. Livingston, gives them an interesting emotive connection.
Agnes experienced a stigmata, and, perhaps, an immaculate conception? Good job teetering between natural and supernatural but the assumption was definitely natural. "Agnes of God" is driven by an assumed natural explanation of its events. However, as the plot unfolds the supernatural becomes a more compelling answer. This is a good example of great pacing. They don't just tell you from the beginning that the answer could be supernatural/spiritual, they let you figure it out and let it unfold more and more throughout the story.
Some of the emotional lows and highs are just too difficult for the actors to get to. It would be easy for someone to confuse the lack of persuasive acting with melodrama. That's not the case with many of the scenes that are notably lower energy than they should be. They are not bad actors but they just don't seem to be able to relate to what is happening to the characters. Probably the director's fault and I hate saying that because I think the guy is a great director.
Later in the film they appeal to hypnotizm to bring about Agnes's memories. This may have been a missed opportunity to show some POV elements of the nights in question. I'm guessing the budget prohibited this.
Doesn't really ask good questions in terms of conflict between religion and secularism although it tried.
Open ended ending which I loved!
There is some very important personal revelations about Agnes's motives at the end and it needed to pay off and it did. There is much to think about when it comes to her motives.
Almost an all female cast and yet never once preached about it or made political statements.
One final comment about the ending: Agnes comes off as almost too innocent. This was intentional so that you can feel the moment at the end where you learn a lot about Agnes's inner life. Very well played.
Pros
Great mystery
Convent is a good creepy atmosphere
Agnes is a complex character
The relationships of all the characters are intertwined in a compelling way
Cons
Actors couldn't always reach the needed hieights
Music was dated
A brief narration about some dangling mysteries was a sin IMO.
Closed for Storm (2020)
A Piece of History
Not the most entertaining, nor the most interesting documentary. I'd say if you want a small piece of the history of hurricane Katrina then this might be up your alley. For me it played out like a future development strategy one might see in a community spotlight video. I guess if you lived in East New Orleans it may also be very interesting. It was well made and professional, better than a typical Mill Creek video I'd say. I wish I could be more positive about it because the effort was there but it just wasn't exactly right for me.
Teen Wolf (1985)
80's fun but nothing special
Movie 1 of 1985 and 121 overall in my journey through films of my lifetime.
Another 80's obsession: the devil-may-care smart aleck. Seth Green was known for this type of role. Every character in "Animal House" or "Ski School" was like this. I never found them all that funny and as the years have gone on I have found them even less funny. "Teen Wolf" breaks no new ground in this area. He's annoying, not funny even with shirts featuring quippy lines and sunglasses at night.
Obviously there is supposed to be a charm to how accepting all the other high-schoolers are of their werewolf peer. In fact that's the central focus of much of the comedy.
When it is finally revealed to the school that our main character is a Werewolf it is probably the best scene of the movie. There are several decent scenes littered throughout Teen Wolf but at large I'd say it does little to distinguish itself from other 80's teen films of its time.
Michael J Fox is a bright spot and to this day is still a pleasure to see on the screen.
Pros
-Original spin that the Werewolf is openly accepted by his school.
-the film never takes itself so serious that it enters into a misplaced drama.
-Michael J Fox is fun to watch, a legit star.
-80's music in full effect!
Cons
-just another 80's teen flick
-not particularly funny
-not exceedingly entertaining or boring.
The Natural (1984)
Entertaining
Bonus movie 6 of 1984 in my journey through films of my lifetime
All I remember is a baseball flying into lights and sparks going everywhere. As the years have gone on I have not found sports movies to be all that inspiring any more. Hopefully "The Natural" will give me a renewed interest!
So it all came rushing back to me, my problem with sports movies. It's kind of like cop movies where the bad guys are the higher-ups in the organization. "So I Married An Axe Murderer" did a good job joking around about this. Who's the problem in The Natural? The higher-ups. I'm not yawning yet but the urge to roll my eyes is strong.
Maybe one of the best terms I can use to describe "The Natural" is "sappy." I just don't think sports are more meaningful than the singular pennant or championship they aspire to within themselves. Golf movies are particularly egregious to this end (being sappy that is) but baseball is definitely a close second. This isn't the case for all of them. "Rudy" or "Hoosiers" would be a good example of movies that offers no transcendent nonsense. Despite my feelings here I'm not saying "The Natural" is a bad movie, actually it's quite good, but the appeal to the audience that would see a sport as all important falls flat to me, it seems almost childish. I feel like the main character in "Dazed and Confused" where he's looking for more out of life than just football. The old man comes up telling him how good the team looks and this guy just had different aspirations; this old man almost seems pathetic hoping for so much out of a high school football team while life is getting on for this young kid.
Redford's acting is not much to speak of. He delivers his lines with this curt, placid cadence that is fine during a line reading but when the lights come on one would expect more. I could be wrong but I doubt he did much theater, few could even hear him much less be convicted of his character's motives. Likely he just got used to getting by on his looks and who could blame him. Truly someone like Harrison Ford would have really made this role and he looked just as good if not better.
The ending, well that's the thing with sports movies: real sports are already full of drama so in sports movies it has to be contrived and over the top. "The Natural" doesn't dissapoint here. The final scenes feel more like Christmas morning than an ideal conclusion to a game. Is this a good or bad thing? I actually think it depends on what you want out of a movie. For me I thought it was a little cheesy, but I also couldn't blame someone who might have loved it.
In the end I'm not embarrassed to recommend "The Natural." It's a good movie, it's not my kind of movie, but definitely good.
Pros
-well made film with beautiful cinematography
-great cast
-great score
-good story
Cons
-Robert Redford delivers a wooden performance
-has some predictable sports movies tropes.
Body Double (1984)
Predictable but very entertaining
Bonus movie 5 of 1984 in my journey through films of my lifetime.
Now I really hate trying to predict movies. I don't want a movie to be predictable. Sometimes it's just so obvious. I hope I'm wrong but at the 26 minute mark it looks like our main character is being set up by his new found friend and the beauty across the street. De Palma has no right at this point to be riffing on "Rear Window" for one main reason; it's a reason I've brought up many times in this retrospective: proactive vs reactive main characters. In "Rear Window" out main character is not content to see bad things happen. He's the kind of guy that's going to make something happen, like investigate. Now I have paused the movie so I don't know what this character will do but I'll tell you so far all he's done is have everything happen to him and it is the weakest form of writing. This is unworthy to being tied to Hitchcock in any sense. Next scene (NS) he gets fired, NS runs across girl by accident (probably a set up making the one proactive thing this sissy has done not even his own idea), NS gets security called on him, NS him and her protected by a full elevator (can this guy even put on his own pants or does that have to happen by accident too?), NS purse snatched, NS claustrophobia... I'm sure it will go on and on but I'm stopping here because I think I've made the point. Several observations: 1) yes this is bad story telling but it's not uninteresting, 2) I've seen Gregg Henry in so many films its obvious from here, almost 40 years later, to spot his body language so the film makers couldn't really account for that. I still bet this was predictable even by 80's standards though. I still will not grade on a curve because that would defeat the purpose of the retrospective so this predictability still counts against the film but I wanted to fully disclose.
As far as general film making goes "Body Double" is still not great. Over the top love scenes, chase scenes, murder scenes, a cliche detective loaded to bear with hasty generalizations it's a catalog of unoriginality. What it is NOT however is boring and that I appreciated.
The abstracted "adult" scene was jarring but unique and unpredictable. It still suffers from the incidentitis the rest of the movie suffers from but it was still a fascinating shift.
Another point from the entirety of this retrospective had to do with John Carpenter. Many aspects of Body Double are almost confusing but very creative. The basic plot would have been enough for an entertaining movie but instead De Palma goes beyond what is plainly the story. I've been calling this a "refined imagination" and it contrasts well with Carpenter who's so straight forward that he's basic and even boring at times. I appreciate that Body Double goes beyond the plain story and into some sort of fantasy.
Pros
-highly entertaining
-definitely clever
-doesn't settle for clever and brings out unexpected scenes
-the main character had an arc, he gets stronger as picture moves along
Cons
-a weak and reactive main character and although he does change it's not enough to make the movie great
-highly predictable main story line.
Streetwise (1984)
Fiction holds nothing on this!
Bonus movie 4 of 1984 in my journey through films of my lifetime.
In the documentary "Seventeen" I noted that it was boring but raw. I'm not sure where the new style of highly edited documentary began but I'm guessing Michael Moore. His documentaries are highly edited and very entertaining. They are also incredibly one sided to the point that they are dishonest. I'd suggest watching "Fahrenheit 911" then "Fahrenhype 911" that documents just how one sided Moore's documentaries can be. "Super Size Me," as I mentioned in my review of "Seventeen," is another example of shallow exposure with little self reflection or truly challenging subject matter. So almost all documentaries I've seen have been highly edited. That's not to say "Streetwise" is not highly edited. It is, in fact that's one of its strengths. However, like in "Seventeen" it has no narration, well, that's not true, it has no narrator proper, rather the subjects narrate their own footage. Another similarity to "Seventeen" is the subject matter: "teens in trouble." I felt as I watched it that it wasn't trying to sell a perspective to me though. It felt nore like it was truly documenting these young homeless teens and how they were thrust into impoverished adulthood in the streets of Seattle. So I would still call it "raw" just like "Seventeen" even though the editing was much more frequent and, in my opinion, superior.
At around the 28 minute mark I'd call "Streetwise" nothing short of shocking. As of the writing of this review it's been almost 40 years aince the events of this film and it doesn't matter at all. Time has done nothing to erode how disturbing it is to see children caught up in this world. They all say similar things about their families, that no one really cared about them. Are they playing it up for the cameras? What I mean is that do they say these things to brandish some victimhood to excuse their behavior? I know some of this has to be played up for the cameras to one degree or another but my guess is that this is how they really feel. I like how "Streetwise" lets me decide if this is important or not. Yes, the editing could be selective but the reliance on me to see and think about what I'm seeing is there.
A movie from 1995 entitled "Kids" was a pretty depressing film that I found to be far fetched at the time but now I realize that life on the street was probably worse than that movie depicted at that time.
"Streetwise" also had a very organized structure. The first half is the life of these children on the street and their feelings for their families. The second half we get to actually meet their families and there seems to be a disconnect between how these children feel and what may actually be the case. The parents and families seem to show great care and affection for what many would call "garbage human beings." In the case of the Green River Killer he was able to exploit the disconnected nature of prostitutes and their loved ones to get away with his murders for years. If you watch the court proceedings though many grieving family members showed up and expressed anger and resentment. My conclusion on this is that it's possible that the disconnect with their families may actually be self inflicted in more cases than we know or care to admit. "Streetwise" is aptly titled because we learn what life on the street is like and what skills are needed to survive straight from the mouths of its survivors. We also get an overview of how we fool ourselves about the complexities of poverty.
In the backdrop of all of the pathos is 80's culture and it time stamped everything for me. I knew exactly what was going on in my life at the time of the events of "Streetwise" and that helped me put things into context. So the makers of the film preserved the posterity with great expertise and that's not true for every documentary. Anyone can benefit from watching this, it's universal and timeless.
The end: wow. I initially thought it was showing me that the gruff exterior of these kids was a defense mechanism that was let down in the moments of the tender touch of the soul of another human being in the same situation. The reality is that it showed me that I had a place in my heart for this so called "street trash." "Streetwise" is an unpretentious life lesson for anyone who watches it. It is by far the greatest documentary I've ever seen and I've seen many.
Paris, Texas (1984)
A Unique Journey
Bonus movie 3 of 1984 in my journey through films of my lifetime.
I know nothing about this director but I can tell only 15 minutes in that he can tell a story with pictures. Zero exposition and so much is on the table. A lost man with a lost history who seems to be following power lines. He's far from home and his brother might be involved with his wife, the mother of his child or something along those lines. Was he presumed dead? Almost no dialog and the world he entered when he crossed the border is likely foreign to what he knew. Despite the fact that these assumptions turned out to be quite off of was still a Great beginning!
So while I was wrong in some of my assumptions it shows how interested the director can make you to the point that your imagination is running with the film. That's called "engagement." How could one not be curious about what has really happened and what kind of drama are we in for when things are revealed.
A note on the music. While I don't personally like this music it fits the landscape perfect and is the obvious and best choice for this film.
To call "Paris, Texas" a drama is to nominalize it. In my opinion it's much more a mystery as well as a drama. Complexity can sometimes be a bad word but in this case the complexity of the mystery just makes your mind wonder the whole movie.
The subtle acting from all involved is honestly on another level. There is some unspoken pain that the actors carry into their body language and faces. What is more is that the camera is never in a rush so lingering on an actor's face feels natural rather than "hey check out what I wanted you to see." In a word the acting in "Paris, Texas" is superb and maybe the best I've ever seen in a movie.
If I were to offer a flaw I'd say due to the slow nature of the movie it really needed to be shorter and becomes difficult to give undivided attention to as the final act plays out. The ending is unpredictable but I wouldn't say it was completely satisfying. As endings go in stories it's fine, even satisfying. I would say that the ending seems off balance compared to this film's mysterious beginnings. I'd say the filmmakers went with an ending with gravity and that works fine.
One final thing that is interesting is that Stanton's character always keeps some kind of space between himself and those he's in conflict with. It's a fascinating and original idea for a character to see him resolve problems without ever having to actually face anyone. In this sense "Paris, Texas" is a masterpiece.
Pros
-entertaining a lot to think about
-subtle brilliance
-great characters
Incredible, INCREDIBLE acting
Cons
-slow (keep in mind that this was important so things would play out naturally but to some it will still be difficult to watch)
-ending was a little out of sync with the beginning in terms of the movie's focus but it was perfect for the characters.
The Last Starfighter (1984)
Definitely not for everyone
Bonus movie 2 of 1984 in my journey through films of my lifetime.
An establishing scene at the beginning is hilarious (unintentional), where a crowd from the local trailer park, in the middle of the night, drop what they are doing to see a kid break a record on an arcade game. The record on a machine that sits by itself, so the only people that would have the current record is the people from the trailer park. Since I lived in this era I know that these games frequently had their high scores reset so at best it was probably breaking the factory setting's generic high score. Additionally there were times of old men and ladies watching and cheering him on. My game back then was "Dragon's Lair" and how many old people watched me play that? None. The only times adults watched me play arcade games is when waiting for a seat at a restaurant. If I was mid game and seats became available do you think they watched me play or went to their seat? Yeah I know you know. This scene was fakey enough to be funny though.
Our main character is picked up by a man in what I think may have inspired "Back to the Future" to use a DeLorean. The similarities are very close.
Two stories with similar themes:
1) Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" where the main character things he's only playing a game but it's actually more important.
2) "Good Will Hunting" where hidden away in the hustle and bustle of everyday life is the hidden talent beyond even the greatest of the talented.
Most of the effects are actually CGI. Obviously they didn't age well. The CGI was actually far greater than any game graphics of the time so they may have been enjoyable to audiences then. As I have mentioned in other reviews I only grade on my current experience and these effects don't get it done. Yes that's bad enough but the wardrobe and sets are even worse; they are cheap and don't look "lived in." one can tell what my conclusion to this is then: immersion is impossible for "The Last Starfighter" to achieve.
Now this is going to sound like I'm looking for a compliment but I'm not. There is one thing this movie gets right and that's the lighting. It's so good at times, on close ups, it even makes the special effects look realistic, well, at least a little.
Pros
-great lightning
-uplifting story that's safe for the family
Cons
-cheap
-unrealistic
-zero immersion
-pretty boring.
Tenet (2020)
Good, not great, but definitely good!
How does one rate a movie like "Tenet?" Should I rate it based on my own preferences or what I think general audiences should enjoy? It's a polarizing film and I want to be helpful to someone who might want to watch it. I guess I sort of have to just stay true to myself and hope that's helpful. With that I'd say "Tenet" is a good movie. Great? No, but good.
The dialog is busy like an episode of "Gilmore Girls." The actors have to spit out their lines rapidly. This makes scenes feel rushed and unnatural. Adding to this problem is how scenes are cut very close to their essence/exposition. While there are establishing shots in some scenes in others there are not. It makes the pacing great but it makes the experience kind of loose. What I mean by that is that it feels like trying to read the pages of a comic book but each page is attached to a car of a passing train. You constantly feel like the story is getting away from you and you get almost fatigued from intense focus. All this not withstanding, whether you like it or not, important scenes will get past you and that is not a great feeling.
The scene where the bullets have to be intended to be dropped before they can reverse entropy has similarities with "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure." It's subtle enough that the comparison is not obvious but that bit of silliness is hiding beneath the surface. In "Bill and Ted's" all they needed to do to place something where they needed it was to merely intend on changing it in the past and VOILA it was there! The Protagonist is told to interact with these reversed arms out of instinct. This was reminiscent of another Nolan film "Memento" where a different type of memory is triggered, "know how," when a physical action is done enough (burning the poloroids). While I'm on similarities to other Nolan films the notion of a hiest has become all to common in his movies now. This is the mark of a storied career but may also show difficulty stepping out of his comfort zone when pushing the narrative in his story. I've heard him mention "meeting narrative demands" before in reference to why time is a ubiquitous feature in his films but one's hand is not always forced. Indeed, at this point in his career he is the one pushing time into his films. Don't get me wrong I absolutely love it, but let's not pretend it's not his thing either.
The mystery of how the world could come to an end is compelling but hiding the "how" question's answer comes with a cost, namely the price is tension. Because through much of "Tenet" we don't fully understand the threat we can't feel the need to see the Protagonist meet his goals. At one point I thought it was fascinating that I could not comprehend how the Protagonist could stop the end of the world because I didn't even know the problem, I just had to trust that he could stop these forces from the future from doing whatever it is they do. That curiosity is great but I was so far in over my head that I had to let the threat just wash over me because after all I couldn't understand it anyway (this part of the human condition is actually alluded to later). I believe Nolan tried to fix this with a very threatening antagonist and a score that helped me feel the threat as immediate. However I'd liken it to nuclear proliferation in the post Cold War world: I can't be expected to remotely be able to track something like that so I spend no time worrying about it even though I'm told I should be very worried about it (again all of this is alluded to later). In short: rather than the audience hanging on hoping that the antagonist will solve and resolve the problem in swift order we are really reduced to a babe in the woods with our heads buried in the sand even if we want to see the truth. Again, like in "Memento" we just have to believe the world is still there even when our eyes are closed.
Now one can blame Nolan for supplementing the confusion with a doom inspired score. It is beyond effective, but I'd say it's too effective. The greatest thing about "Tenet" should be its rewatchability but alas there is a problem here as well: between the mental energy and stress one feels from hearing the gripping music and deep base of engines and distant explosions "Tenet" is stressful to watch. I'm not sure I really can come back to watch it that often. It takes something out of you.
When the Protagonist enters the version of the world going in reverse entropy, the blue time frame, he's inverted and we are seeing what he sees. To this point we have seen several temporal interlopers as well as some bullets, vehicles, and many other things in a reversed entropic state. Now we are seeing the Red enter the Blue and the entire world is reversed entropy for our main character. The Protagonist is warned not to come into contact with himself or annihilation. This is a further hint of things to come and is letting the audience know what is ultimately on the line. This is Nolan at his best. He wanted us, the audience, to experience being inverted, not necessarily seeing time going in reverse. This, again, is similar to "Memento" where the narrative is told in reverse but only so we can experience short term memory loss. Additionally this has similarities to "Twin Peaks" and the Red Room. Everything except the main character, Agent Cooper, is reversed. It's a fascinating little cinematic experiment. Well "Tenet" dials that up by about fifty. The best way to experience this movie at this point is to experience what Nolan wants you to experience, he's trying to give you a feeling you've never had before and it is truly edifying to his audience.
A note on the time line: The Protagonist is such for several reasons but an important one is that we see the story from his time line. When "Tenet" begins we are in the "red" timeline or more accurately the red entropy. So The Protagonist's timeline runs parallel with the red entropy. When The Protagonist enters the turnstile he goes into the blue entropy but temporally speaking is still forward for the protagonist yet is a reverse timeline. So, like the trains going in two directions at the beginning, so are the two timelines. During all of this the Protagonist is going forward. Simple enough, well, except one thing: the second turnstile. The Protagonist has now re-entered the Red entropy but earlier in the red timeline. So after about half way through the second act The Protagonist's timeline, while still forward, is actually behind where we begun at the start. This means things are still being manipulated by a force in the future. What is that force:
WARNING SPOILERS
That force is The Protagonist himself. As it turns out the movie "Tenet" is about one big temporal pencer devised by The Protagonist. We are told much of this at the very end. What is really interesting though is that the antagonist is dying and is going to take the world with him. The Protagonist passed a test at the beginning where he was willing to die to save others. This played out with the two trains going in opposite directions while a fight was on for the silver suicide pill that will come in later.
So, as it turns out, The Protagonist is named as such for several reasons: we are following only his timeline, "Tenet" itself is about his temporal pencer strategy, and finally his unique position makes him the only possible protagonist as no one else has access to all the elements of the world. On that final point he is speaking to a character that asks him a question and The Protagonist responds, "divided knowledge" to keep him in line but in truth no one knows enough to be the protagonist but The Protagonist himself. Finally we learn that the protagonist is also posterity which is future generations. The final scene is him wrapping up all the loose ends and he did so from the beginning to the end.
Splash (1983)
A Fun Adventure
Bonus movie 1 of 1984 in my journey through films of my lifetime and.
This is a big one. A movie I have never seen, never had an occasion to see it, and when the idea for this retrospective came up this was one of the first movies I thought about. All of that's fine but a bigger thing I'm looking for is if this movie will recapture the feeling of the 80's in not only an authentic way but also remind me of what it was like back then as well. Do I have high expectations? Not really but here goes nothing.
Nothing happens for the first 20 minutes. It's barely even set up. Additionally the first 20 minutes has some of the least funny comedy one could see. It's hard to imagine that Ron Howard had Tom Hanks and the greatest SCTV alums and concluded that slap stick was the way to go. "Ouch" is the only word to describe the beginning of "Splash."
My mind can't help but wonder as I watched this so I came up with an idea for a sequel: "Splash 2: Meet the Parents!" where Hanks tries to get her family out of a lovecraft cult called "The Esoteric Order of Dagon" only to realize he's actually one of them just like in "Shadow Over Innsmouth." I had fun changing all the dialogue to her hiding her Innsmouth citizenship rather than being a mermaid. Of course that's probably not a good sign!
I do appreciate their efforts, they really tried to make a good entertaining movie, they respected their audience. Unfortunately I'd say "Splash" failed to achieve its comedic goals. It wasn't all bad though and to be fair there were some funny moments. Some examples (details ommited): her saying her real name, the lobster eating scene which was funny because of how it was statged and filmed so good job Howard! A funny moment was John Candy and Hanks pretending to speak Swedish. So "Splash" did utilize Candy's comedy talent at least once. There was at least two other moments that hit a laugh from me but the fact I can itemize them isn't good.
What's telling is what interest me the most about "Splash." Hanks doesn't know he's dating a mermaid. A scene happens at about the 55 minute mark where he's on the outskirts of piecing it together but can't quite figure it out. Great scene but almost an hour in to get to this character's "thing" is way too long. I think the story just failed to emphasize that the guy doesn't know this is a mermaid. It's one of those oversights I understand because it would seem obvious to the writers and producers but it's really not. As an audience member I'm still waiting for what this movie is about and it really wasn't about much at this point.
Candy's acting was great. He handles drama as good as he does comedy. His most dramatic moment was easily as good as the drive way scene in "Ucle Buck" where he had the kids in the car to take them to the horse track.
Just like in "Starman" there is this unjustified time frame of 6 days until she has to leave. I understand the need to push the narrative forward but this is lazy writing. Unlike "Starman" "Splash" had a perfect set up and payoff using tabloids and popular forms of media to express the shift of the public narrative from incredible to credible which was pretty interesting. The end of course was a military chase and the striking similarities to "Starman" were even more profound except for a rather large exception which I'll omit to avoid spoilers. I will say this though, in the final frame, a lovecraftian, cyclopian city! How hilarious would it have been to end with some creepy music? Oh well.
Pros
-entertaining for sure
-had funny moments
-fun to watch its star cast
-scratched an 80's itch
-the bonus material on the DVD was fascinating
Cons
-not great
-the opening act was a lot of wasted time
-a lot of wasted talent. Using Candy for mere slapstick is a sin!
-highly predictable ending that mimics everything of its day and can be seen even in my retrospective including "Starman" and "Firestarter."
Starman (1984)
Nothing to see here
Movie 10 of 1984 and 120 overall in my journey through films of my lifetime.
In "The Blue Lagoon" the question was asked, "what would happen if two teenage members of the opposite sex were stuck on an island?" It's a boring question because it's obvious. The question at the heart of "Starman" is equally uninteresting, "What if an alien came to earth and tried to analyze humans while assimilating into human life?" What would it be like for them? What would they learn? How long can you stay awake? Along the same lines our alien will have many misunderstandings about human culture. Sounds like a set up for some crazy comedy! Was it lame back then? I believe it was. It's a reason I never really wanted to see this.
Now what would foster the most intensity for our alien and our audience? I KNOW: what if the government was chasing it??? That's NEVER been done before! The good news is that there is an unintentionally funny element here: what branch of the US government will send an agent? SETI of course haha! This is why I say that John Carpenter has an unrefined imagination, he takes the first and most obvious idea and runs with it.
A note on Jeff Bridges: his acting was great as usual but he was directed very poorly. If you were cast in a film to act like an alien how would you do it? Whatever your first thoughts are is probably pretty close to what Bridges did. I would call it insulting to the audience's intelligence but it's really just a bad mark on Carpenter. His ideas are just basic, plain, and uninspired in many, but certainly not all, of his projects.
Now keep in mind that because aliens have exceeded out technological capacity they have also exceeded our moral capacity as well. This is similar to "being on the wrong side of history." We'll know more therefore we'll even be more moral. Of course this is a tragically flawed understanding of ethics. There is zero correlation between intelligence and "enhanced morality." If morality is truly objective to the point that it could be measured in terms of advancement that would render it reletive, meaning one would be left with no real definition of morality at all. How can this be? Because if there is no objective, static, prescriptive, standard for ethics that is grounded in something beyond culture or even general conscience then how could a more "advanced" lifeform "know better" or even "behave better?" So no future beings or more advanced beings would be able to be any more moral than we already need to be able to be. You see this assumption in "Starman" where the human race is declared "primitive" for eating animals. We'll catch up one day. Basically "Starman" is conflating technological advancement with moral standards, but standards by definition don't "advance."
There are so many obvious set ups and pay offs. It's almost as bad as most time travel narratives. Each new scene is another set up that pays off usually within minutes. I guess the filmmakers were worried that no one had a long enough attention span to catch any subtlety. What would be an example of a more sophisticated set up and payoff? Well try almost any Cohen Brothers movie. What comes to mind is the sign on the bathroom door in "Blood Simple."
Anything good happen in "Starman?" Yes, it was visually pleasing. Some very good cinematography as well as well thought out camera angles. I think this is where Carpenter really shines. I know directors can't control all these aspects but they do have a hand in all of it in various forms. Some effects were clearly aged but some were very good. If you like movies primarily for this reason you will probably like "Starman."
For me this was quite the boring experience which is to say that it lived up to my expectations. I'm glad that many films in this retrospective surprised me but this, as well as others, confirmed some of my assumptions.
One word on the ending. Despite my issues with this movie I have to admit I was moved emotionally. I'm not sure if it was the music, acting, or both. I'll say that I felt something for the main character and I think it was because I thought she would end up a certain way and when that didn't happen I truly felt sorry for her. This is NOT a spoiler, trust me in that; it's my expectations that I created during the film that caused this. There is no surprise here or ends very plainly and is telegraphed all the way through.
Pros
-great pacing
-beautifully shot
-some great effects
-great acting
Cons
-I was bored
-contrived
-not imaginative
-not compelling
-doesn't ask good questions but makes sophomoric assumptions
-was supposed to be an anthropology piece on humanity in some ways but never challenges itself to push in-depth narrative scenarios, this was a huge failure.
Trapped in Paradise (1994)
A really bad movie with one saving grace
Pay close attention to other negative reviews on IMDB because I think they are all basically right. I've watched this movie every Christmas off and on for many Years. So basically this movie is not remotely funny or even a good story. I think they tried to fit too much into the film. I headlined a "saving grace" and that was not a fib. Other than the change-of-heart narrative similar to "The Grinch that Stole Christmas" this movie is not remotely derivative. It's original for the most part, although the "going to a small town for Christmas" is a hallmark of most recent made for TV Hallmark Christmas movies. Still it's similarities are superficial at worst. I'll conclude with this: if you are tired of the same Christmas movies year after year "Trapped in Paradise" might, at least, and I mean AT LEAST, be a nice change of pace.