Movies you've just watched

[BIL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSNfjJGB9z8

[Dawn111]

Watched Rush (2013), and it's an excellent, intense movie that's accurate with a real story. R.I.P. Niki though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F5BaQ6a6Jw

[Mischief Maker]

Blood Machines (shudder original)

It's a bigger-budget sequel to the excellent music video Turbo Killer:

https://youtu.be/er416Ad3R1g

The actual trailer for Blood Machines is not work safe.

I gotta admit I was disappointed. On the plus side, you'll see the entire female cast of the music video nude and floating through colored space. On the minus side, they don't actually deliver on the "cosmic opera" promised in the trailer until the very end. It starts out slow with lots of awkward dialog by non-english-speakers in surprisingly drab environs. And frankly the action at the very end is muddled and confusing and not nearly as exciting as the music video.

Oh well, I was hoping for another Turbo Kid. If you happen to have shudder for some other reason, it's worth a look if you enjoyed the music video. But I wouldn't get a shudder subscription just for Blood Machines.

[it290]

Biggles! Caught this on LaserDisc last night. Why have I never seen/heard of this film before? So much fun, and hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKbNQOxaJZM
^ Trailer... whole movie is on youtube btw.

[vol.2]

Biggles! Caught this on LaserDisc last night. Why have I never seen/heard of this film before?

The movie is loosely based on a long series of books. The main character in the books is overtly racist, and by the time the movie came out, the political correctness movement was in full swing.

I believe that history has forgotten Biggles because of the hate the character represented off-screen.

Otherwise, it fits nicely into the borderline b-movie 80's afternoon cinema genre. The movie itself does not portray the main character as what the large volume of books do.

[Vexorg]

Mannequin: **

Cheesy 80s movie based loosely on the Pygmalion story from Greek Mythology, where a department store mannequin comes to life (and turns out to be a several thousand year old ancient Egyptian who has done so throughout history) and immediately falls in love with the man who created her, and somehow this isn't weird at all in any way shape or form. The plot's a jumbled mess of contrivances, the characters are all one-dimensional parodies of themselves, and the only real notable thing to come out of this movie was the closing credits song by Starship that ended up becoming a #1 hit. Even so, like a lot of bad 80s movies, this one eventually reaches "so bad it's good" status to the point that it eventually picked up a bit of a cult following.

[vol.2]

it eventually picked up a bit of a cult following.

I would agree (as the critics have always) that it's not a "good" movie. However, it's not true that it's a cult movie, per se. Mannequin was a *huge* box office success and was extraordinarily popular, especially as compared to contemporaries of the genre.

Simply put, the movie did not appear in a vacuum. It succeeded commercially because it was written to the culture surrounding it. It was supposed to be a charming and "cute" date night movie, and it did it's job for that.

Digging it up in 2020 and declaring it a stinker is really missing the point. Also, it's been declared a stinker for 30 years, so that's not anything new.

The real question is "why did it do so well while receiving sub-bad reviews?" I would say that the critics missed something. They missed how well it played upon the tropes of the day, and how much actual intelligence is there in the writing. The difference is that it's not written to be a "smart" movie, or a particularly artistic movie. It's written to hit a particular mood at a particular snapshot in history, and to appeal to the crowd of a certain age. It did so with impeccable aplomb.

It may seem odd that I'm choosing to respond to this, but this movie is a bit of a poster child for what I think is an unfair critical bias in film (and art in general). This movie was meant to appeal to certain people at a certain time. The critics purposefully ignored that and championed standards from their own elevated standards. Siskel and Ebert and Leonard Malton are super guilty of doing this. They judge every film from the same set of standards and for all people. It can't be done. Films are not all written to appeal to the same people.

Another movie that springs to mind that is similar to Mannequin, but faired a little better is SoapDish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapdish

[Vexorg]

it eventually picked up a bit of a cult following.

I would agree (as the critics have always) that it's not a "good" movie. However, it's not true that it's a cult movie, per se. Mannequin was a *huge* box office success and was extraordinarily popular, especially as compared to contemporaries of the genre.

Simply put, the movie did not appear in a vacuum. It succeeded commercially because it was written to the culture surrounding it. It was supposed to be a charming and "cute" date night movie, and it did it's job for that.

Digging it up in 2020 and declaring it a stinker is really missing the point. Also, it's been declared a stinker for 30 years, so that's not anything new.

The real question is "why did it do so well while receiving sub-bad reviews?" I would say that the critics missed something. They missed how well it played upon the tropes of the day, and how much actual intelligence is there in the writing. The difference is that it's not written to be a "smart" movie, or a particularly artistic movie. It's written to hit a particular mood at a particular snapshot in history, and to appeal to the crowd of a certain age. It did so with impeccable aplomb.

It may seem odd that I'm choosing to respond to this, but this movie is a bit of a poster child for what I think is an unfair critical bias in film (and art in general). This movie was meant to appeal to certain people at a certain time. The critics purposefully ignored that and championed standards from their own elevated standards. Siskel and Ebert and Leonard Malton are super guilty of doing this. They judge every film from the same set of standards and for all people. It can't be done. Films are not all written to appeal to the same people.

Another movie that springs to mind that is similar to Mannequin, but faired a little better is SoapDish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapdish

I've watched and commented on SoapDish on this thread previously (see this post). I don't doubt that this film found an audience when it came out I'm not even necessarily saying it's a bad movie, just that it's a really bizarre one. And there were plenty of similarly bizarre movies during that era (a favorite of mine is Better Off Dead) that the critics similarly hated. They made whole franchises worth of these types of films that generally got terrible reviews but kept making the studio lots of money. Lately we've been going through some of the Police Academy movies (Ironically, Kim Cattrall was in the first one of those too) and that's a prime example of a series of movies that reviewed horribly but kept making a ton of money for quite a while. The first film in the series was its highest rated at 54% on RT, with the subsequent films in the series getting 31%, 40%, 0%, 0%, 0% and 0% (yes, four films out of the seven have 0%) RT ratings, but all but the last couple made significant profits (the first four films earned a total of over $380 million on a combined budget of $41 million) and the series also managed to spin off into a couple of different TV series (one live action, one animated.) They all basically amount to 75 minutes of random throwaway gags followed by 15 minutes of something vaguely resembling a plot at the end (often with big action sequences that probably paid for the Christmas parties at the Stuntmen's Association for several years.)

Joe Versus the Volcano is another similarly bizarre film from that era which got somewhat better reviews (61% RT score, probably because it has Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in it) but made less money than Mannequin did with more than three times the budget.

In fact, I suspect 90% of the "popular" movies these days are the type of thing that the Roger Eberts and Leonard Maltins of the world would despise (just look at all the outrage that occurred a couple of years ago when the Academy proposed the addition of a "Best popular film" category at the Oscars) but most of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes seem to be products of the culture that produces these films so it doesn't reflect nearly as much in the ratings now.

[vol.2]

but most of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes seem to be products of the culture that produces these films so it doesn't reflect nearly as much in the ratings now.

True, but it's missed it's chance at popular redemption. RT isn't going to reflect the mood of 1987 in it's popularity appraisal. If such a movie does manage to make some headway in a popular online polling system, it's because it's gained some "cult" status (as you mentioned) and not because it captured a mood thirty years ago.

They are reborn, not redeemed.

Better Off Dead is great. I was in love with the black Camaro when I was a teenager. Also features one of the best one-liners in an 80's movie. (Have you any idea what the street value of this mountain is?)

Police Academy series is kind of a drag. I remember liking the first two and skipping the rest. Steve Guttenberg jeez that's one guy who really dropped off the face of the earth. Went from A list to who cares in about 3 years for no good reason.

Joe vs The Volcano was special to me. I'm not going to defend it, but I loved that movie when it came out and it still has a special place in my heart. I get that it's not so great, not even as good as the other Hanks movies at that time, but I was into it, and I didn't care about the reviews.

[Frenetic]

Culloden (1964) "A reconstruction of the Battle of Culloden, the last battle to take place on British soil, as if modern TV cameras were present." (from imdb) Directed by Peter Watkins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmEuXaea8rY

[lilmanjs]

African Kung-Fu Nazis
A silly movie about Hitler secretly escaping to Africa with the leader of Japan's WWII military to form their own cult and draft members into it. How to stay young for so long? They use martial arts to stop their aging. Despite that silly plot that barely makes sense, we get a love for old-school 70s martial arts movies and very good action. I was expecting everything to be awful, but the action packed a punch and was well done. Even a little bit of Hitler doing some martial arts himself!

[Vexorg]

Batman and Robin: **

We knew coming into this one that it was going to be a trainwreck, and were not surprised to find that this was the case. The plot was a jumbled mess, the various actors chewed so much scenery that there was probably no need for craft services on the set, the visuals look like someone in the editing room accidentally bumped the "Technicolor" dial all the way to the max and nobody noticed until the film premiered, and the end result is in some ways a cinematic disaster, and in other ways exactly what you'd expect a comic book movie to look like. It's certainly in the running with the 1968 Batman movie for the campiest Batman movie ever, although I'm pretty sure George Clooney's Batman never had to fight off a shark while hanging off a ladder dangling from a helicopter.

[cj iwakura]

It's amazing how Highlander can be both such a gloriously trashy and beautiful film in alternating quotients.

Blood Machines (shudder original)

It's a bigger-budget sequel to the excellent music video Turbo Killer:

https://youtu.be/er416Ad3R1g

The actual trailer for Blood Machines is not work safe.

I gotta admit I was disappointed. On the plus side, you'll see the entire female cast of the music video nude and floating through colored space. On the minus side, they don't actually deliver on the "cosmic opera" promised in the trailer until the very end. It starts out slow with lots of awkward dialog by non-english-speakers in surprisingly drab environs. And frankly the action at the very end is muddled and confusing and not nearly as exciting as the music video.

Oh well, I was hoping for another Turbo Kid. If you happen to have shudder for some other reason, it's worth a look if you enjoyed the music video. But I wouldn't get a shudder subscription just for Blood Machines.

I loved it, especially the open ended ending(and that godlike music).

[Vexorg]

Batman Forever: **1/2

To be honest, I'm not sure what to think of this one. On one hand, Jim Carrey as the Riddler turns in his usual mid-Nineties nails-on-chalkboard performance and does plenty to drag this movie down. On the other hand, Tommy Lee Jones is actually pretty entertaining in the role of Two-Face, the major villain in this film. Meanwhile on the Bat-side Robin's origin story feels rather shoehorned in, and ultimately it doesn't feel like he really does anything useful anywhere in this film. All in all it feels like this film would have been better off just ditching the Riddler entirely and focusing on the Two-Face storyline. For as bad as Batman and Robin is, at least it's entertaining to watch as long as you're expecting a complete trainwreck going into it. This one mostly just feels mediocre, although it does have its moments.

With the recent news that Michael Keaton's version of Batman (in this case Bruce Wayne as a former Batman from an alternate universe) is being introduced into the DCEU films, it appears these two films will eventually end up struck from canon. I suspect there's a few people out there who would like these ones to be forgotten...

While You Were Sleeping: **1/2
Fairly average mid-Nineties rom-com where Sandra Bullock, as a transit worker, saves a commuter she has developed a crush on from an oncoming train after he is knocked unconscious by muggers and falls on the tracks, then convinces hospital workers she is his fiancé in order to see him in the hospital, which leads to her getting involved with his family while he spends several weeks in a coma. In the meantime she falls in love with his brother, and from there it just gets complicated. Then again, he's not the one with his name on the poster, so you can probably guess from there what happens.

[BryanM]

Ghosts of Mars.

I thought with the combination of John Carpenter + Ice Cube, at the very worst it'd be goofy terrible schlock.. right? Oh how very naive past me was.

I am legitimately pissed at how trolled I was. "Here officer, this is where they trolled me."

Here are the things the movie succeeds at:

* The MC has an aesthetic face.
* I was amused that Ice Cube's make-up artist and hair stylist were credited specifically as such in the credits. (Shout out to Deborah Denson and Beverly Jo Pryor!)
* Making me wish I was doing anything else with my life during its entire duration.

It's impossible for this trainwreck to not have been 100% intentional. You can literally change any of the writing or choreography in the movie to anything else and probably improve it. I really couldn't get over how much better it would have been if the monsters were actually over enthusiastic KISS fans.

...... they constantly do that cliche movie thing where they point their guns at each other but don't really mean it. The characters are cartoonishly stupid, but not in an entertaining way. The horny guy is just slimey and horny enough to be gross but not horny enough to do something that matters or appeal to those who want to see that kind of thing. The entire thing is told as exposition wrapped in exposition like a moksha doll to make the movie worse, as the creators intended it to. The ending was like "this was a movie, maybe, lol".

I give up. This is the worst a movie can possibly be. No stimulation of any kind to be found for even a single minute. I was not entertained. I was not educated. Fuck you, John Carpenter.

[vol.2]

Ghosts of Mars

At that point in his career, JC was throwing shit to the wall to see what would stick. That, and I suspect the decades of cocaine abuse had done lasting damage and he was partially self-lobotomized by this point.

Unfortunately, unless there's some kind of miracle, I think he's done. The last movie of his that I liked was In the Mouth of Madness. Some people didn't even like that one.

[GaijinPunch]

Holidate

Came home drunk w/ a pizza and the gf had spun this up. It was about what you'd expect from a Netflix holiday rom com. A couple of laughs.

[BryanM]

Unfortunately, unless there's some kind of miracle, I think he's done.

Hurm, I suppose he wasn't heavily involved with the last Halloween movie and won't be in the upcoming The Thing thing.

I'm pretty certain Ghosts of Mars was intentionally crafted to be as bad as possible. I hafta look up what John has to say about this...

Responding to the criticism towards the film, Carpenter stated he was intentionally trying to make Ghosts of Mars as over-the-top and tongue-in-cheek as possible. He claimed he was trying to make a mindless and silly, yet highly entertaining and thrilling, action flick where "the universe allows its characters and plot points to be silly without becoming full-fledged comedies", akin to 80s movies like Commando, Rambo: First Blood Part II, and Predator. Looking back on the film and its criticism, he stated he was frustrated that most people thought the film was meant to be a serious horror movie, and feels that he should've made the film more openly comedic and "in on the joke", saying "I have no power over what critics say, but when people complained about the movie being campy and not scary...the name of the movie is Ghosts Of Mars, I figured the campiness would be self-explanatory."

.... sounds like a bunch of lies. Still certain he made it as a hate letter to humanity.

[vol.2]

Still certain he made it as a hate letter to humanity.

I would buy that. But, in some sense, many of his movies could fit that description.

There was another side to him though, the side that made Starman, and that occasionally comes out in other films. I would argue that he lost touch with that, or gave up on it for some reason. Typical culprits include critical rejection, personal demons (heavy drug abuse) and a change in creative collaborators.

My guesses are just guesses, but I know that Debra Hill (RIP) was an important creative ally of his. Even before her death, that kind of disappeared and his work became less focused, to be occasionally elevated in a random way.

I suppose that if someone came along and effectively took that role again, something good could come out of it; sort of like a Rick Rubin of film-making or something.

The apparent fact that this hasn't happened yet might be an indication that JC is not pleasant to be around or that he's too far gone mentally for anyone to do anything about. Or maybe some of both.

That's doesn't mean the Ghost From Mars wasn't a fuck-you to mankind, but he's definitely made a lot more entertaining fuck-yous.

[BryanM]

Yeah, he seems to be happy with making music these days, I'm sure if he wanted to make more movies he could have gotten funded, but I totally understand how much of a pain in the ass it would be. Composing is something you can do on your own without worrying about herding cats or budget. The Halloween 2018 soundtrack is nice.

Ghosts of Mars, one thing I noticed it lacks that most action schlock has is a dab of politics. Predator, Robocop, Alien, Terminator, Starship Troopers.. If one was aiming for the gore+nudity draws of a Friday the 13th or Toxic Avenger, it doesn't have any of that either.

... damnit why haven't I watched Turbo Kid yet. I only watch one movie a year and I spent it on this : (

[Mischief Maker]

Yes, you should watch Turbo Kid. It'll put a smile on your face!

[GaijinPunch]

Recommend against Holidate.

[vol.2]

I only watch one movie a year and I spent it on this : (

That's an awful lot of pressure to put on Ghosts of Mars. Just saying.
Maybe watch a Kurosawa movie to cleanse your palette and pretend you didn't watch the other one?


FWIW, I totally enjoyed Turbo Kid, but I'm not sure how I would judge it under the one-movie-a-year requirement. That's like having a desert island record but it's a movie. A year is a long time.

This is basically my brief reaction to the movie, but I'm going to spoiler it so it doesn't color your expectations if you don't want it to, or you just don't wanna read it.

Spoiler

Turbo Kid felt like a love-letter to my childhood. Having grown-up in the 80's it was like what my imagination remembers those mediocre 80's science fantasy movies as, but watching it as an adult. The writing is fairly intelligent and the acting holds up for what it is. It's not a masterpiece, but it's very effective in showing off what that era of sci-fantasy storytelling was trying to accomplish in general, and it does it in a way that seems to take the source material seriously, not in irony. I think it's not better than it is because it's authentic enough that it actually shows the limitations of the format.

[BIL]

Recommend against Holidate.

[BryanM]

The new movie I watched last year was Shin Godzilla, and I am drawing a blank on anything in-between. I'll try to talk myself into going crazy this year and doubling up, Mischief. (I just keep forgetting that movie exists!)

"It's coooold don't you want to lay in your beeeeed and watch a moooovie?"
"But last time I did that, I wanted to shut the movie off halfway through but couldn't because I was warm. I was helpless before the KISS Fans of Mars."

... you'll remember my usual defense mechanism in this situation is falling asleep in the middle of the day re: Malcolm In the Middle Godzilla and Ghostbusters Answer the Call... Ghosts of Mars, not a good napping movie.

That's an awful lot of pressure to put on Ghosts of Mars. Just saying.

I just had that much faith in John Carpenter and Ice Cube

... I'll admit a little bit of it was my lack in faith of IMDB. 5/10, effectively a 0 out of 5 on the five point scale, I couldn't imagine Johnny doing so poorly even putting in minimum effort.

[BIL]

That's an awful lot of pressure to put on Ghosts of Mars. Just saying.

I just had that much faith in John Carpenter and Ice Cube

... I'll admit a little bit of it was my lack in faith of IMDB. 5/10, effectively a 0 out of 5 on the five point scale, I couldn't imagine Johnny doing so poorly even putting in minimum effort.

Wasn't this around the time JOHN CARPENTERS VAMPIRES came out? I remember thinking "Woof woof! Movie man name am on VHS box, must see other box w/ movie man name!" And enjoying the whole slate of late 70s/early 80s JC GOLD. Halloween, Escape NY, The Thing, Big Trouble, Prince of Darkness, unf unf me am smart and distinctive young film buff. No, MOM, the bit where the hooker gets strangled with her panties is SOPHISTICATED ARTFORM :O

And then WANTING 2 KILL MY SELF because I felt like he was deliberately being bad for my burgeoning generation. 3; A bit like all the rad metal bands trying to kickstart their flagging 90s fortunes. I had that much faith in ICE T. 3;

"Virtual XI sees Maiden back to their electrif-" I hope whoever wrote those liner notes tripped and fell on a Flying V, and its headstock did not merely cause a nasty bruise but cartoonishly punched straight through their ribcage and out their back. Like in a horror move.

[BryanM]

Oi, that cover to Vampires is something else, definitely on par with Mars' Ghosts. Did they not want anyone to want to watch their movie? The people on the cover don't even look like they want to be in the movie.

The cover to Poultrygeist is definitely a thing of high art in comparison. It's the kind of thing that makes you say "regrettably, I feel like I should go see this movie probably."

Still sore Google banned Troma's channel. It's a bit hard to swallow they did so in "decorum and good taste" when they're selling their movies on Youtube. Probably had a lot more to do with how they were just giving away their product for free, for people to watch. With their eyes.

[vol.2]

Wasn't this around the time JOHN CARPENTERS VAMPIRES came out?

I will fully admit to having a psychotic break-like disbelief at how bad Vampires was, except that EFLA was also bad (to me) and only saved by the actors (contrary to what some might argue).

By the time GFM came out, I had learned my lesson, but watched it anyway. It's definitely a state-of-mind kind of movie. It's about the effect of John Cale's (from the velvet underground) album Sabotage.

Trust me, you don't want to go there either; unless you're in a very particular hole of your own making and you're keen on digging it bigger.

[Vexorg]

Home Alone: **1/2

We've officially hit Christmas movie season, and this one's one of the "newer" classics (and by newer, I mean it's only 30 years old.) I seem to remember really liking this one as a kid, but it seems to lose a lot of its appeal when you've grown up, especially if you have Kevin McAllisters of your own. It's a John Hughes film, which means that Chicago is the center of the known universe, and there's about a 75% chance that John Candy is going to show up at some point (he does, but only briefly, as they could only get him for one day.) You also get the weird phenomenon you see when an actor known for playing foul-mouthed tough guy characters (in this case Joe Pesci) is playing basically that same character, but they have to keep their language PG-rated, and you spend the entire movie watching them hold their tongue and expecting them to explode into a blue streak that would make a sailor blush any moment, but it never happens. To borrow from CinemaSins, I would have taken off a million sins if Kevin had told Harry to go get his F***in' shinebox...

That said, you don't realize just how ridiculously contrived the plot to this one is until you watch it as a grown-up and see just how ridiculous a series of coincidences is needed to make the plot happen in the first place, much less drive it forward.

[GaijinPunch]

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles

What can I say? Gets better every year. Masterpiece.