ajh4477's blog

During my research, I found out parts II and III of BTTF were created and shot one right after the other. Many people are of the opinion that this was the worst movie in the trilogy, and I’m inclined to agree. The problem is, I’ve never been keen on Westerns or films set in the Old West, so I’m not sure how objective my judgement is.

Also, I never watch TV or films during the day. It’s just not a luxury I have the time or patience for, so it feels weird to be sitting on my couch, writing a review with the sun shining through my windows. Watching a Sci-fi film didn’t  feel as adventurous and thrilling as it would have felt at night, but I have to wake up at 4:00 tomorrow morning to go to the airport, so this was my only chance. Taking all of these factors into account, I’ll write as objectively as possible.

BTTF III is just as well written, acted, directed and produced as I and II, but the presentation is a little choppy. The story isn’t as complicated as II, which was a little disappointing. There aren’t any gaps in the timeline, but at the beginning, I didn’t understand how Doc ended up in 1885. Maybe that was when I got up to pour myself a cup of  coffee. If I and II were smooth as silk, III was more like a cotton-poly blend.

In BTTF III, 1955-Marty McFly discovers that Dr. Emmett Brown is trapped in the year 1885, and “Doc” has written a letter in 1885 for the future Marty and Doc to find, explaining the situation. As Doc and Marty are repairing the damaged time-machinge Delorean, Marty sees Doc’s tombstone, and discovers that Doc will be dead in six days. Once again, it’s Doc and Marty to the rescue.

Marty goes back to the year 1885 so try and save Doc from his future-murderer, a relative of Biff’s named Buford Tannen. Marty arrives in the middle of a cowboys-and-indians style fight and the Delorean is damged beyond immediate repair, so Marty hides the car in a cave. As he walks to his future home, Hill Valley, Marty runs into Seamus and Maggie McFly, who are his ancestors, and tells them his name is Clint Eastwood. The McFly ancestors are played by Michael J Fox and Lea Thompson.

There’s no way to repair or fuel the Delorean in 1885, so Doc works up a plan to get the car in front of a train to push it up to 88 mph. While exploring the railroad tracks, Doc and Marty see a runaway carriage. They abandon their explorations to stop the carriage, and Doc falls in love with its passenger, a school teacher named Clara (played by the lovely Mary Steenburgen.)

The love story between Doc and Clara is rocky and precious. When Doc tells Clara that he and Marty are time travelers, she “breaks up” with him, but of course in the end they end up back together, and everyone returns to the appropriate time. Doc and Clara depart in a train, along with their two children (one of whom makes obscene hand gestures toward the end), and Marty goes back to 1985 via the time machine. Everyone lives happiily ever after.

There were futuristic gadgets in BTTF III, but not as many, because most of the film is set in 1885. I missed the gadgets. Also, this film seemed to move a little slower than the first two. The characters weren’t as fresh. The producers capitalized on the fact that the audience had fallen in love with the characters, and didn’t provide quite as much entertainment. There was less action, and more emotional interplay between the main characters, with the supporting characters (such as Lea Thompson’s dual role as Lorraine McFly and Maggie McFly) fading into the background.

All in all, this film was satisfying. Although I didn’t enjoy it quite as much as I enjoyed BTTF I and II, it was a good way to end the trilogy. I recommend that if you watch the first two, you shouldn’t skip out on the third for fear of disappointment, as I’ve heard and read some people do.  Go ahead and watch it. Who knows? It might move you like it did the woman in this Youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAqWX3uYj_0

First, a personal note: I absolutely love the music in this film, because it makes my feet start dancing! This film is especially great when you’re all alone with a bag of popcorn and a bottle of red wine (Yes, I know. Gross.), waiting for Thursday to get here so you can go see your husband for Turkey Day. That’s all I can think about. I’m glad I chose BTTF II, because if I had chosen a less awesome movie, I wouldn’t have been ablt to finish it.

The most impressive thing about BTFF II is its consistency with BTTF I. The references to the prequel throughout the film not only stay true to the original story and characterizations, but enhance them. True, some of the characters are way over the top, but that’s to be expected in the type of film.

In this film, Marty McFly and Dr. Emmett Brown go into the future to save Marty’s son from ending up in jail. While Doc and Marty are in the year 2015, Marty accidentally lets 2015-Biff get his on a 1985 Sports Almanac. Biff discovers that Marty and Doc are from the future, travels back in time, and gives 1955-Biff the almanac. 1955-Biff then makes a fortune betting on sports and ends up ruling Hill Valley.

Then, 1985 Hill Valley becomes the Biff-dominated 1985 Hill Valley, and Marty has to go back to 1955 to get the 1985 Sports Almanic away from 1955-Biff. In short, it is up to Doc and Marty to save the world of Hill Valley, once again.

As Marty is fighting for the almanac, he is in a paralell world that is the same story as in BTTF I, so all the same events happen. It’s brilliant how it all comes together in the end!

This movie is certainly darker than the prequel, and some of the characters are more eccentric. I heard a lot of negative things about this film, but I’ve always been fascinated with the idea of metaphysical travel, so I enjoyed this one as much as the first.

As with several of the other films I’ve reviewed for this blog, I watched a little of this film back when it was first released. I watched about five minutes of it at a Christmas party at my piano teacher’s house, and then it was time to exchange white elephant gifts.

Frankly, I think this movie is weird. The acting is terrific, and the story is wonderful, but I didn’t enjoy the parody as much as I thought I would. It was by no means a “bad” film, but this thing won 8 Academy Awards, and all my musician friends tell me I need to see it. It was funny most of the time, and a little depressing at others (I forgot that the real Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died of drug and alcohol-related issues.)

 I didn’t do my usual mount of research before watching this film, mostly because I’m leaving town on Thursday for Thanksgiving, and I’m trying to get everything done before I go. Dear imaginary readers, I’ll try and make it up to you in my final blog, the subject matter of which I haven’t decided. I’m open to suggestions.

I always wondered why the costumes were over the top, and the acting theatrical. My question was answered after the fact, when I read that this film is based on a play which was written in 1979 by an Englishman named Peter Shaffer. This film made me appreciate the works of Mozart because obviously his timless works are featured throughout the film.

I always thought of Mozart as one who would have been a dark, troubled kind of person like Beethoven was.  To me, that’s the prototype of the musical genius (I have known a few of them….musical geniuses that is.) I liked the portrayal of Mozart as a “rock star.” It was somthing new, or at least, new to me.

Overall, I liked this film. It just wasnt as mind-blowing as I thought it would be.

And I’m really sleepy.

I saw a very short portion of this film a couple years after it was released. I was watching it with my (then) college roommate, but I had to study for Algebra. I chose this film because my current roommate already has it, and while I was sick, I accumulated quite a tab at Redbox and Blockbuster Video. Thus, my movie-budget is already blown. The reason for my never having seen is different (too much homework instead of too much parental guidance).

I was about 21 when I watched the firt few scenes of Blast From The Past. I have a 14-year-old sister who as a baby at the time, and I remember thinking that when she got older, she might look something like Alicia Silverstone’s character in this movie. Turns out, I was right. She does.

Blast From The Past was directed by Hugh Wilson, and written by Bill Kelli, and Hugh Wilson. I don’t know very much about the writer and director because I don’t seek out their work. I did see First Wives Club, which was also directed by Hugh Wilson, and I really enjoyed it.  According to IMDb, Hughs usually gives himself a cameo in his films. I didn’t know that until after I watched it, so I didn’t notice him.

For what it was, Blast From The Past was a good film. It’s the story of Adam, a man who returns to the outside world after spending 35 years in a nuclear fallout shelter with his parents. When he re-enters the world, he is very naive, and his naivete causes a lot of troubles for him. The love story between Adam and Eve (corny names really) is complicated by the fact that she is a sexually liberated woman, and he is innocent and virginal. Their love story is fraught with even greater difficulty because, not only is Adam inept in the ways of sexual love, but he is also inept in the medthods of survival, especially in a plce like Los Angeles.

Over the years, slapstick doesn’t change much. This film had a lot of comedic cliches in it. Brendan Fraser was cute, but his character lacked enough developement to keep me interested in him. Eve, as well, lacked something, although I’m not sure what. Her character is nothing but pure stereotype so it didn’t require much developement. I think what I wanted was a better introduction to her in the beginning.

Adam’s parents, played by Sissy Spacek and Christopher Walken. I always enjoy Spacek, and I  always enjoy making fun of the way Walken speaks (not as much fun when you’re watching a film by yourself though). Walken and Spacek had great chemistry as the eccentric parents. They were hilarious. After their performance, the rest of the film didn’t seem as funny as it should have.

In fact, my favorite scene is the one where Adam’s dad exits the fallout shelter and discovers that his old home is inhabited by a bunch of “mutants”, which are actually hookers, and druggies. This scene redeemed the time I spent watching the film. Basically, this film promised more than it gave me. There were moments I kinda wanted to fast forward (but of course didn’t, since I needed to bolg about them later.)

I would recommend this film to people who enjoy easy characters, a shallow plot and plain silliness. This would be a great movie to watch in a large group while intoxicated.

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124298/

Watch the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-2L3jnxFY

I had surgery on Friday. I am bedridden. I should just post all the rest of my blogs for the rest of the semester, but that takes away some of the fun of it. I’ve never written a public post while taking Hydrocodone (which makes you loopy and dizzy), but here foes-er-goes:

For the first 15 minutes of this film I wasn’t sure I would make it through the whole 97  minutes, but after 25 minutes, I was enthralled. The characters in the this film are over the top, theatrical, what I have seen to be typical of the genre so far. The reason I would have watched this film as a teenager is that Molly Ringwald is in it. The reason I didn’t watch it is that it is risque and rebellious, full of sexual references and strong language.

The film opens with this line:

“And these children that you spit on as they try to change their worlds;
are immune to your consultations, they are quite aware of what they are
going through.” -David Bowie

“The Breakfast Club” features five stereotypical high school students who meet in detention: Andrew Clark, the “athlete” played by Emilio Estevez; Claire Standish, the “princess” played by Molly Ringwald; Brian Johnson, the “brain” played by AnthonyMichael Hall; John Bender, the “criminal” played by Judd Nelson; and Allison Reynolds, the “kook” played by Ally Sheedy.

Though they dislike each other at first, they realize they have a lot more in common than they realized. In the end, the “princess” steaks into the closet for a little one-on-one action with the “criminal”, the “athlete” falls for the “kook” and they kiss goodbye in the parking lot, and the “brain” decides not to take his own life after flunking an assignment.

This film took me into a world I never went down myself, because I didn’t go to a public hih school, and I never went to detention. I went to the principals office one time in third grade, and got “paddled” for laughing at a friend’s joke on a field trip to a candy factory. So, this was my first and only experience with what “detention” might be like.

I suspect nowadays detention does not require kids “just sitting there”, because no one would dream of inflicting such a punishment. I thought the depiction of Principal Richard Vernon (Paul Gleason) as a merciless tyrant was unbelievable, but funny. I thought his threats to John Bender in the closet were super creepy. Basically, he seemed like a guy just trying to do his job right, until he threatened to kill Bender after he graduated. I’m not sure why that part didn’t seem to fit into the rest of the movie. Maybe it was the Hyrdocodone.

The acting of the kids in this film was amazing. The only characters I didn’t believe were the principal and John Bender. This is the first film I have blogged about that I think I could have done without.

Watch the trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1200226585/

IMDb:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088847/

I watched this film and wrote the following blog about three weeks ago. Here it is, lon overdue:

With every film I watch, I wonder how I survived childhood without it. Ghost Busters would have been one of my favorites. Ghost Busters was released when I was two. That’s hard to believe, because I remember being in fifth grade and still witnessing a cult following of this film among my peers.

I appreciate the two extremes of humor. This film is slapstick enough to be fun for kids to watch, and has some not-so-subtle adult humor, but humor which would be a little above most young kids’ heads.

I didn’t do as much research on this one before I watched it, so I was pleasantly surprised at the cast. I’ve always enjoyed the work of Rick Moranis, and Dan Aykroyd. Sigourney Weaver’s possessed Dana Barrett was smokin’ and I want to learn how to do her “Zuul” makeup fpr my next date with Andrew.

I thought the two best moments of the film were near the end. The best by far is the “Stay Pufft Masrhmallow Man” scene. It was ridiculous and I loved it. Andrew and I watched that scene in every language that was available on the DVD.

The runner- up is the following exchange during the scene in which the Ghost Busters are introduced to Gozer:

“Are you a God?”

“No.”

Then, DIIIIIEEEEEE!”

I think the punchline was the line the line that followed: “..when someone asks if you’re a God, say YES!”

However, the set-up  “DIE…!” line was so cheesy I laughed right over the punchline.

The special effects in this film were pretty good for 1984. Back then, it would have provided great suspension of reality. Watching it in 2010, I was fascinated with the behind-the-scenes footage and outtakes. The resources in 1984 were limited, computers were crude, and the raw footage looked completely different from the actual footage because there were no digital cameras.

I appreciated Alice Drummond’s  “Librarian” in the opening scene of the film. I felt sorry for her plus she was funny.  The excellence of her acting drew me into the film and kept me hooked the entire  104 minutes.

In closing, I must mention one more time how much I want to BE Sigourney Weaver after watching this film. I must also mention that I think everyone who missed out on this movie should watch it at least twice and I’m going to share it with my three sisters who never watched it either.

On Thursday night, I watched The  Karate Kid (2010), and since I never saw the 1984 original, decided I would write a little about both.

Having never seen The Karate Kid (1984), I didn’t understand what “wax on wax off” meant, and never fund it very funny. In fact, I thought it was some twisted sex joke. The advantage to seeing the 2010 version first was that I was thrilled witless during the climax of the “jacket off- hang it up-throw it down- pick it up- jacket on- jacket off” scene.

It took me completely  by surprise! I had no idea why Mr. Han was making poor Dre play with his jacket all day, every day, rain of shine. Everyone else had seen The Karate Kid before, so it wasn’t as exciting for them. That’s when I decided to watch the original and write this blog.

In the 1984 version, Noriyuki Morita’s ” Mr. Miyagi” is absolutely classic. He really is like Yoda. I greatly enjoyed the scene where he is talking about Daniel getting squished like a grape. I saw a reference to the fly-swatter scene inthe 2010 movie,  and it delighted me to see where that scene came from.

When we sat down on the couch to watch the film, my husband said, “I just really don’t see how I’ll connect with Jackie Can as Mr. Miyagi. He’s too goofy.” I didn’t understand this at first, especially because I was surprised to find Chan’s “Mr. Han” to be very moving. Once I saw the 1984 movie, I understood the doubts about Chan. Mr. Miyagi is such a charming character with so much depth, he would be hard to duplicate.

And he wasn’t. Jackie Chan’s “Mr. Han” took a completely different road with the sensei character. Where Mr. Miyagi appears old and frail until he starts “kicking peoples asses”, Mr. Han is younger, hipper, and has a ruggedness about him. Mr. Miyagi was a “lighter” character and Mr. Han was a little “darker.”

In the end, I think I could have done with just the new version, which  is strange for me. I usually like the original better. On the other hand, to me, the 2010 movie IS the original. I like Jaden Smith’s  “Dre Parker” much better than Ralph Macchio’s “Daniel LeRusso.” I also enjoyed China better than Los Angeles as the location. I enjoyed watching the characters blossom through and spite of the language barrier.

I loved the wealth Chinese history and legend in the 2010 movie, and found them comparatively scarce in the 1984 one. I had my doubts about enjoying both; 2010 because I thought it was a kids’ film; 1984 because I had just watched 2010. I recommend both, but if you have to see just one, see 2010.

I chose this movie because it was the best of four options at my sister’s house on this, the lovely morning after my bachelorette party. I’m not usually the type to get carried away with the tequila, but after all, what’s a bachelorette party for? I do feel more than capable of writing this blog.

Jennifer Connelly has blossomed into a brilliant actress and it was funny and refreshing to see her at the beginning of her career. She looks lovely in Labyrinth but her acting leaves very much to be desired. I’ve seen her recently in “Dark Water”, “House Of Sand and Fog”, and “He’s Just Not That Into You.”  In “Labyrinth” her acting was theatrical and exaggerated.

She plays sarah, a 15 year old fairy tale obsessed girl who is left to babysit her baby brother, Toby. Sarah gets fed up with the baby’s crying and wishes for the goblins to come and take him away.

Enter David Bowie’s King Jareth to take the baby to his castle in the middle of a Labyrinth. Sarah has to find, and sometimes fight, her way to the castle before the hourglass runs out in order to take her baby brother back home. As in all typical kids movies, this one has a happy ending.

I couldn’t decide whether Bowie was sexy or creepy. Every time he stepped into the frame what I mostly noticed was the bulging loin area of his leggings. Henceforth I think I’ll refer to him as “sock-man.”

Between Bowie’s pants and Jim Henson’s puppets, this movie was worth watching. The music made me feel good. The set was incredible. It was like watching a demented version of “Alice In Wonderland.”

When I was eleven years old I went to my first “slumber party” (nowadays they’re called “sleepovers”).  We had dinner at Mr. Gatti’s, where I won Skeeball about twelve times. I bought a Whoopi Cushion with my prize tickets (which was later confiscated for it’s crudity), and we tie-died t-shirts.

The movie of the evening was “Sixteen Candles”.  I don’t know how it happened- maybe it was “mom-radar”- but about five minutes into the film, four or five of us were removed from our cushions and bowls of popcorn, and told by our host that our mommies didn’t want us to watch the movie. We played Monopoly instead. I was a little disappointed about missing the film, but I remember having fun in spite of it.

I missed out on a lot of great films during the 80’s and 90’s. My family was Southern Baptist and conservative. We lived in the country with cows and tractors, and no cable. Not being allowed to watch “The Lion King”  and “Dances With Wolves” didn’t exactly ruin my childhood. Still,  every year one of my new years resolutions is to systematically catch up on all those movies I missed out on. I’m really lucky because now I finally get to do my catching-up, plus I get to blog about it.

It wasn’t until I got to college that I realized missing out on all those movies put me at a social disadvantage. People bond when we watch our favorite films, and I lacked the knowledge necessary to reminisce with my friends. Trouble was, I didn’t have time to watch all the great new films of the millennium AND catch up films from the 80’s and 90’s.

Now I’m doing it. Last night, I finally watched “Sixteen Candles” and, without further ado, this is what I think about it:

John Hughes’  “Sixteen Candles” is a film typical of the early 80’s with it’s themed electronic music, bright-pink lip stick (when I saw it, I said “Ugh. Molly….earth tones!”), swooping bangs and mob hats. I believe I even saw a mullet or four.

I remember thinking that Molly Ringwald’s “Samantha (Sam) Baker” was just who I wanted to be. She was sweet with a rebellious streak, just pouty enough to be cool, and had awesome red hair.  I got my hair cut to look like hers, even though I only saw a few minutes of the movie.

My "Sam" haircut.

I watched the film with my fiancee, and the first comment I made was, “Holy crap….this is TOTALLY inappropriate for eleven and twelve-year-old kids.” Within the first ten minutes, there was an F-bomb, two sexual references, and a female full-frontal.

The film itself was a classic teen romance, and it capitalizes on teenage drama and coming of age hardships. The basic synopsis is that Sam’s family completely forgets her sweet sixteenth birthday in the hassle of her vapid blond elder sister’s wedding the next day to what Paul Dooley’s “Jim Baker” calls “a lunkhead.” Sam has a “really shitty birthday” but in the end, well…I won’t tell you in case you haven’t seen it. In the end, everything works out.

Most of the acting was good, with the exception of the elder sister, “Ginny”, played by Blanche Baker. A pubescent Anthony Michael Hall plays the most adorable geek I’ve ever seen. His character’s name is “The Geek.” My favorite scene was the “pull up” scene at the beginning in which two high school students are doing pull ups with only their heads in the frame, but in the wide shot, their feet are still on the floor.

I understand why this movie still has so much appeal even now, more than 20 years after its release. I also understand why I didn’t get to watch it that slumber party.

If this blog fails utterly, I can always switch to “one new box cereal per week.”