Note On "The Karate Kid (1984, J. Avildsen)"

I was flipping through channels recently and stopped on The Karate Kid. I haven't seen it in a while and it was near the end. Daniel was making up with Elizabeth Shue (my first crush!) and he was getting ready for the tournament. I kept watching so I could hear the "You're The Best (Around)" song. But upon watching the film to end, I picked up on a solid emotional beat that I believe helped make this story so inspirational and successful.

After LaRusso gets his leg swept during a tournament fight, he is laying in pain asking for Mr. Miyagi for help. Daniel wants to make it to the last fight. Miyagi doesn't understand. but LaRusso pleads that having the girl, the car ("status"), and the Karate knowledge is not enough; he wants to go all the way. He wants to prove that those guys can't pick on him anymore. This is a genuinely effective scene and just the kind of character journey endpoint that Daniel (and Miyagi) needs to reach.

This is a very Rocky-ish theme, which should come as no surprise considering KK's director Avildsen. But credit should also go to screenwriter Robert Mark Kamen and Ralph Macchio/Daniel LaRusso, for being able to sell this beat without (too much) schmaltz.

Sure, Miyagi's mystery "hand rub" saves LaRusso's leg and he wins the big fight, but it is earned. Most films would delight with the success being LaRusso's tournament victory, but this film is the richer for having him realize that his true victory is to "go all the way!"

Where Eagles Dare (1968, B. Hutton)

All Movie Guide:

Plot Synopsis by Hal Erickson

An expensive but enormously profitable war picture, Where Eagles Dare centers upon a daring rescue and even more daring escape. Disguised as Nazi officers, commandoes Maj. John Smith (Richard Burton), Lt. Morris Schaffer Clint Eastwood and six other courageous souls parachute behind enemy lines. Their mission: to rescue an American general, held captive in a supposedly impenetrable Alpine castle. Aiding and abetting the commandoes are Allied undercover agents Mary (Mary Ure) and Heidi (Ingrid Pitt). Also on hand is a British officer (Patrick Wymark), who masterminded the mission. Somewhere, somehow, someone amongst the Allies is going to turn out to be a traitor. There's also a neat plot twist in store when the commandoes manage to reach the American general -- which leads to yet another twist. The vertigo-inducing climax has made Where Eagles Dare one of the most sought-after of "early" Eastwood starring features. The film was written directly for the screen by espionage novelist Alistair MacLean.

This Men On A Mission film is one of the more profitable of the genre, but, except for two sequences, not one of the most exciting. I had read about this film whenever reading about WWII movies and their subgenre of Men On A Mission movies. Films like The Dirty Dozen and The Guns Of Navarone make up this sub-genre. Quentin Tarantino plans on making his own contribution to the genre with his upcoming Inglorious Bastards.


The film takes its time getting going, introducing the characters, the side characters, outlining the mission, gearing up to go, and parachuting out of the plane. For the first hour or so, we are making our way towards the castle. Not a lot is exposed about our characters which only lessens the film and our care for the characters.

There are two nice sequences:
1. Where a German watchman is listening to the radio and switching the stations as Eastwood is trying to sneak up behind him. He turns the music off, on, scratchy static, off, on scratchy static, then he turns off the music... Nice Sequence.

2. When the soldiers try to make their escape via the Air Trolleys you can see in the top poster, there is a lot of in/out/in/out while escaping. It is a well paced suspense and action sequence.

All in all, this wasn't as exciting as others in the genre but was worth watching on a lazy Saturday afternoon. I leave you with a crazy foreign poster for the film I found online:

Sneakers (1992, P. A. Robinson)

From All Movie Guide:

Plot Synopsis by Matthew Tobey
In this tech-thriller from director Phil Alden Robinson, a group of five renegade computer hackers, led by Martin Bishop (Robert Redford), are hired by the government to steal a black box, containing a code-breaking machine, from the mathematician who invented the device. The government is able to persuade Martin to take the job by convincing him that they will drop a decades-old federal warrant for his involvement in computer fraud. Martin agrees and he takes his team on the mission, eventually taking the box. Shortly after the hackers have stolen the device, the mathematician turns up dead. Before long, the quintet realize that they've gotten themselves into more than they'd originally bargained for, as Bishop's old rival Cosmo (Ben Kingsley) enters into the fold. The eclectic ensemble also includes River Phoenix, Sidney Poitier, Dan Aykroyd, David Strathairn, Mary McDonnell, and James Earl Jones.

This is an enjoyable entertainment. Pure and simple. It is a caper film with a good sense of fun and wit with a great cast who all get to have fun. Tobolosky is awesome. Aykroyd gets to play the conspiracy guy, Strathairn a blind guy, Phoenix the young goof, Poitier the old wise ex-CIA, and Redford as the old-school leader. Almost every scene managed to balance drama/suspense/spy stuff with well placed touches of humor. This kind of entertainment, not unlike North By Northwest, is rare these days. Worth a queue position on your Netflix.



One Surprising Sidney Poitier Line: "Motherfuckers mess with me, I'll split your head!"

Lars And The Real Girl (2007, C. Gillespie)

All Movie Guide:

Plot Synopsis by Derek Armstrong
Lars (Ryan Gosling) and Gus (Paul Schneider) are the grown children of a father who died recently and a mother who died giving birth to Lars. But as brothers, they couldn't be more different. While Gus lives in the family home and has a loving wife (Emily Mortimer) and a child on the way, Lars leads a more reclusive existence in the family's garage, hiding in plain sight of his small, wintry hometown. Painfully shy and eccentric, Lars fails to recognize that his co-worker Margo (Kelli Garner) has a major crush on him, and he picks up on a casual reference made by his cubicle mate, who mentions a website where you can order life-sized, anatomically correct sex dolls. But instead of seeing a sex object, Lars sees in this doll a potential life partner and the only kind of social "peer" he can relate to. So Lars orders a doll, whom he names Bianca, and begins treating her with utmost gentlemanly respect -- and as though she's his real-life, flesh-and-blood girlfriend. As he begins bringing Bianca with him everywhere he goes, the townspeople have to find just the right balance between supporting Lars' unusual romance and trying to introduce him to a more conventional partner. Lars and the Real Girl was written by Six Feet Under scribe Nancy Oliver and directed by Mr. Woodcock's Craig Gillespie.

Lars And The Real Girl is a film with many attributes (good cast, pacing, location) that are squandered by certain things in the film's writing that are impossible to go along with. I am surprised that this film was nominated for a Screenwriting Oscar.

First of all, we've got a crazy guy as our lead character and Gosling milks it with back-and-forth pacing, eye twitches and all. This guy has serious issues with his family, being physically touched, and whatever you call it when you fall in love with an inanimate object (Objectophilia?). I don't understand what we are supposed to see in him in order to care for his character. Creative Screenwriting Magazine's Jeff Goldsmith asked screenwriter Nancy Oliver this question during his podcast interview: "What is the character Margo supposed to see in Lars, because (...) he has some serious issues?" And Oliver actually says, "Well, he's really cute." (!?!?!)

While this statement is astonishing, coming from the screenwriter, it makes complete sense after watching the film. This is why Lars is played by someone like Gosling and not by Dan Fogler or Jonah Hill (uh... no offense, guys?). His stuttering and crazy talk is supposed to be "cute" and his social proclivities are completely okay because he hasn't exhibited violent tendencies. Okay...

From the above synopsis:

As he begins bringing Bianca with him everywhere he goes, the townspeople have to find just the right balance between supporting Lars' unusual romance and trying to introduce him to a more conventional partner.

That isn't exactly correct. The townspeople do nothing to introduce him to a more conventional partner after he starts bringing Bianca around. It is the exact opposite of this which brings about the more unbelievable aspects of this picture. The writer wants us to believe that the townspeople are coming to love Bianca (and in turn Lars) because they want her to "help out" at various places; like at the church, the hospital, a school, as a shop window model, etc. Later, we learn in a tossed off line that Bianca was elected to the School Board (!?!) The filmmakers want us to believe that this is the townspeople's way of showing Lars love, but if comes off first as the townspeople using Bianca, and then later as something that could not logically happen.

Where is the media while all this is happening? When a sex doll is elected to the School Board? This would be one of those AP Stories Of The Year. This film wants to play this off as a tossed-off joke but it undermines the credibility the film needs when actually dealing with Lars' illness, which the film doesn't wholly do. We understand he's the way he is because his parents died, he has had an estranged relationship with his brother, he lives in the garage, etc.; but this is all undermined by the silly Bianca nonsense. We don't ever really get to see the inside of that garage or Lars living in it. What does he do in there? Why is living in the garage so demeaning?

This movie would be a lot more interesting if it was about the brother and not about Lars. The brother character and his conflict with Lars and his own wife is much richer than Lars' pop-psychology brainfuck. Paul Schneider is very good in this role and reminds you that he should be in more movies.

The filmmakers did not pull off their intended balance of whimsy and pop-psychology drama but it was nice to see a movie set in a small town (though not as small as the filmmaker would like you to believe) that really doesn't get to be a setting in a mainstream movie anymore. This isn't the worst movie in the world, just highly disappointing considering the amount of people who've drunk the Kool-Aid, and the talent involved.

Step Brothers (2008, A. McKay)

Plot Synopsis (really, this and the poster is all you really need to know):

Two spoiled guys become competitive stepbrothers after their single parents get hitched.

Where's the love? It seems that there is a bit of "too cool for school" backlash out there (internet/friends/media/etc.) against ol' Will Ferrell. I don't get it. Sure, he may be a little overexposed with a movie coming out every season. But he is still an incredibly gifted comic performer and be at least interesting in anything.

I seem to be more a fan of his team-ups with his long-time co-writer/director Adam McKay. I am a huge fan of Anchorman and it's compulsive rewatchability. But I'm more of a fan of how it goes in very absurd places. Couple that with Ferrell's (has to be) improv wordchoice/delivery, and you've got very funny and singular comedy.

I have a feeling I'll be watching this a lot on cable, where it will flourish late-night.

With a "R" rating and the seemingly low-budget, I had a feeling that Step Brothers would be more Anchorman and less Semi-Pro. And I was right; for the first 45 minutes.

For that first 45 minutes, the film is just as surreal in what the characters are saying than anything in Ferrell's already weird repertoire. And it is filthy. One of the reasons the trailer failed a bit is most of the jokes contain crazy dirty language and could not be used in the trailer. You feel like the film can and will say/do anything during these first 45 minutes until the brothers have to "learn to grow up". When the film starts heading towards it's ending, it turns more conventional and loses the outrageous laughs much the same way Wedding Crashers lost its steam during its third act stretch.

What is undeniable is the chemistry between Ferrell and Reilly. One of my favorite moments is right after they've built their bunk-bed. They enthuse about the space they now have and all "the activities" they could do. They really do match each other equally with bizarre and effective word choice humor. They really should do more movies together and I hope they find a role for Reilly in the planned Ron Burgundy sequel.

Explorers (1985, J. Dante)

AllMovieGuide Synopsis:

Explorers turns out to be much ado about nothing, but it's so sublimely assembled we're willing to overlook the sappy climax. Young sci-fi geek Ben Crandall (Ethan Hawke) (could he possibly be based on director Joe Dante?) would give anything to travel in space. Thanks to his computer-happy pal Wolfgang Muller (River Phoenix), Ben gets his wish, together with best bud Darren Woods (Jason Presson). In the Great Beyond, the boys encounter an extraterrestrial (Robert Picardo), whose knowledge of earth is limited to what he's gleaned from 1960s TV sitcoms (this is unusual?) Lots of outer-space fun ensues before the film's inevitable downward spiral. Moderately successful in theatres, Explorers had a healthy second life on video and cable TV, especially after director Dante rethought the film and rearranged a few scenes for better dramatic (and comic) impact.

The previously mentioned 80's List preparation and the continuing thread on Joe Dante at The Criterion Forum has sparked something of a Dante renaissance recently. I always watch Gremlins at Christmastime and The Howling in October, but I haven't seen some of his filmography in quite a while. I revisited Innerspace a couple weekends ago and that will be a subject of a future post, but this post is all about Explorers.

Explorers is not a film I saw much in my youth. In fact, I can't remember if I ever even saw it beyond the VHS box cover at the video store. I find it hard to believe, as I was a slave to HBO back in the day and have seen anything Amblin produced roughly a billion times. But if I had watched it back then; I believe the film would've gotten me more into science. I was already playing "Cardboard Box Spaceship" when I was little but I feel this would've compelled me to build a real spaceship in my backyard with my friends. The Goonies made me want to go treasure hunting and The Monster Squad made me want to start a club to hunt vampires; I feel this film would've had the same impact. I think I could've ended up more like River Phoenix's character when in actuality I was probably more like Ethan Hawkes: all excitement and naivety.

Thoughts While Watching Explorers:

If made today, I feel like the kids would've taken they first spaceship test/trip twenty minutes earlier than they did. It was about 40-45 minutes before the kids tested the thing out. I think the film is better for it; there is more character development to make the test more exciting.

There's a not so subtle reference to Star Wars in the film. The only sci-fi film that Presson watches, on television at home that isn't a pre-existing film, resembles the Lucasfilm as the lead character is referred to as "Starkiller" (no-brainer) and when Starkiller says "he was my father" (no-brainer as in there's no brain).

When the kids meets aliens, one of the aliens spouts out nothing but pop culture sayings like "What's up, Doc?" and sings the Mr. Ed theme song. This particular alien character (as the other is well-spoken) seems to get all his information on the earth culture from the television; not unlike kids nowadays as well as the Presson character (although he doesn't go about quoting TV shows).

When an alien listens to Presson's Walkman, the looks at the boy questioningly. Either Presson or Phoenix says "It's 80's music. It's cool!" I laughed out loud. You would think that this would be a time-stamp on the film but I think that a number of people would still say that phrase (including myself).

It was moving when the kids land and they watch their spaceship sink.

And what's with the girl at the end? When Hawke sees the spaceship appear in the classroom and the kids go flying (literally, not in the spaceship), the girl is there and she kisses Hawke midair Superman-style. But why is she there? Is this a dream and she's the girl of his dreams and...? She saw the kids land in the spaceship, so she believes them and can go flying? The ending is simultaneously baffling, poetic, cheesy, and satisfying without being so.

I wish I had seen this more when I was younger, but I love it anyways. It's an 80's movie; it's cool!

Fandango (1985, K. Reynolds)

From All Movie Guide:

Plot Synopsis by Eleanor Mannikka
The still unknown Kevin Costner carries this film that involves five college roommates on a last "fandango" before they separately face the harsh realities of an unpredictable future. It is 1971, and the Vietnam War has not yet ended. Gardner Barnes (Costner) has extended his college years by six semesters in an attempt to stave off the rapidly approaching future, Kenneth (Sam Robards) has just canceled his wedding in a drunken look at reality, Lester (Brian Cesak) loves alcohol and tags along with the group just to have a good time, Dorman (Chuck Bush) is devoted to existentialism and flights of poetic fancy, and Phil (Judd Nelson) is barely a member of the group because he is consorting with the enemy: he is a member of ROTC. This unlikely mismatch cavorts through several classic college pranks, among them taking bets on daredevil acts like skydiving into the middle of nowhere. As their high jinks continue, it becomes apparent that their real desire is not to live a wild life for its own sake, but to postpone the moment when they will have to leave school and its lifestyle behind them.

I watched Fandango for the first time last night, in order to prep for my eventual "80's List" submission on The Criterion Forum. I sought it out because I thought I had read a poster in the 80's thread (thought, because now I can't find it) say he enjoyed it more than Levinson's "Diner". Tarantino also calls it one the best film writer/director debuts ever.

Now, I wouldn't go that far (on either statement; "Diner" is a better directorial debut). But it is a fairly enjoyable on-the-road/coming-of-age film bolstered by an ensemble cast including Kevin Costner, Sam Robards, Judd Nelson, and Chuck Bush as college grads on one last road trip before the 1971 Draft. There's some other dude that is asleep/nursing a hangover with them the whole time, but I honestly forgot about him for most the movie.

The use of this cast and how they frame them is what I enjoyed most about the film. Costner is in full swagger mode , Robards' character is the one who makes bad decisions, and Nelson is the whiny one who must learn to toughen up. They all have to mature and it's fairly typical, but what saves it are:

A great understated performance by Chuck Bush as "Dorman". He's the fourth of the four/five (yeah, that sleeping kid who's not in the poster. He's five, right?) guys taking the road trip and has no back story compared to Costner, Robards, and Nelson. He's just around to read Sartre and Gibran, and help out physically. He just barely has more of a character arc than the sleeping hangover kid. Which is too bad, because I enjoyed him the most. More so than the whininess of Robards and Nelson. This movie came out the same year Nelson was in "The Breakfast Club" and "St. Elmos Fire" (which I haven't seen in forever), which now looks like kind of a peak year for the Brat Packer.

With so many movies having trouble with their endings these days, I was honestly suprised that Reynolds ended the film like he did. Affectingly melancholic indeed. And no "Where Are They Now" title cards at the end!

I found a website dedicated to the film,Howaboutafandango.com, and I learned that a plane/helicopter sequence was filmed above the highways of my old hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma! Alot of the movie was filmed around Marfa, Texas ("Giant" is referenced in the film), the same location as recent films "No Country For Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood". I swear a gas station the Groovers stop at looks like one that Anton Sugur does.

The film is set in 1971, but really has that eighties feel to it. I can't really explain it any better than to point out it is produced by Amblin, at which point I feel like they were at a high point. Maybe it's Costner's mullet in a flashback/dream(?) sequence, or Robards' fiancee having crimped hair at one point...the airplane pilot goes to pick up Robards' fiancee in a big-house suburban type nighborhood...

But I digress; I enjoyed this film and was wondering who else has seen it. I don't think it adds anything new to it's genre(s), but is a great lazy afternoon hangout type flick to put on. I may be giving it a special pass because I enjoyed these types of films popping up on HBO, growing up in the eighties. I completely missed this one back then.

Reynolds went on to "Prince Of Thieves" and "Waterword", but I've heard that "The Beast" is worth watching. Has anyone seen it? I also read that Reynolds wrote the original script for "Red Dawn" which John Milius rewrote(re-Righted).