Tag: 1987

  • Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)

    Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)

    140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

    Not technically a remake of Pretty In Pink, it nevertheless sort of is. But not as good. Or good at all, really. Guess you had to be there.

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    Spoiler-free Movie Review of Some Kind of Wonderful:

    Definitely a case of a film that, not having seen it after all these years, I probably should have just continued to not watch it. Because I find it hard to be truly fair with Some Kind of Wonderful. I know lots of people love the movie, and it was fairly well received by critics at the time, with some suggesting it was an improvement on Pretty In Pink. But I just don’t see it.

    Would it be petty and simplistic to say that the biggest issue I have with Some Kind of Wonderful is that it does not feature the fantastic Gerry Coffin/Carole King song of the same name? Not totally serious (not totally joking either)…

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    No, the real problem is the pacing and execution of the narrative. The whole film seems like a Reader’s Digest condensed book, as though someone took a better, nuanced film and severely edited it for TV run-time. It’s just in such a rush. I know John Hughes wrote astonishingly quickly, a product of his start in advertising and then magazine publication, and maybe those roots inform this picture more than anything. Featuring the same director, Howard Deutch, writer (Hughes) and some of the same production team, it was released only a year (almost to the day – actually only 364 days) after Pretty In Pink. Maybe it really is that advertising instinct of rushing a product to market.

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    The anecdotal / apocryphal line on this film is that Hughes was forced into an ending he didn’t want for Pretty In Pink due to test audience reactions and studio pressure, so he made Some Kind of Wonderful to get the ending he wanted. He simply swapped the genders in the love triangle and made sure it was the two kids from the wrong side of the tracks who got together this time. (Maybe it should have been called Pretty In Pink 2: Duckie’s Revenge…)

    I have no idea if this story is true. It feels true, but there are many stories that seem too perfect not to be true but are nevertheless not borne out by the facts. (e.g., the prevailing belief that Big Trouble In Little China was originally written as the planned sequel to Buckaroo Banzai but was re-purposed into a new story when Banzai flopped. It seems true, it feels true – they share a main filmmaker, the timing makes sense – but it’s simply not so.)

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    If this is indeed the correct information on the provenance of Some Kind of Wonderful, it may help explain why Molly Ringwald took a pass on essentially making the same film twice. What seems irrefutable is that Ringwald turning down this film ended both her collaboration and friendship with Hughes, who was certainly known to hold a grudge. It’s really a shame they fell out, as their partnership produced three classic films, and any reasonable person can understand why an actor would want to move on to avoid being typecast.

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    Here are a few of the reasons I found Some Kind of Wonderful so unsatisfying:

    • The actors are far too old. Sure, this is true of many if not all teen movies, but Eric Stoltz was 25-26 at time of filming. C’mon…
    • It’s simply not believable that anyone would choose Amanda (Lea Thompson) over Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson) for any part of the story. I’m not talking about the actresses themselves (well, maybe a little) but their characters. The whole plot of Keith (Stoltz) being obsessed with Amanda makes perfect sense – until they meet. At that point the complete lack of chemistry or even coordinated conversation should have been a deal-breaker. What makes it worse is that the two have most twisted interactions once they actually have their date. Which leads me to:

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    • THE DATE. I put it in caps because it clearly is this enormous momentous event in the picture. This is what I’m talking about with the sprinters pace of the picture; every agent of change in the picture occurs before the big date. It’s like they are dealing with the consequences of an action before the action itself. The second these two characters are even contemplating going out on a date everyone turns the volume up to 11. We never really get to see Watts & Keith’s friendship. It’s not the slow burner of a friendship that gains a new aspect. They know each other – not even really well, and then she’s grilling him about this other girl. Really within the first conversation between these two friends where Keith asks Watts about Amanda the dynamic changes. Instead of the feeling that maybe Watts is beginning to see something else in her friend, it comes off as a knee-jerk jealous reaction, as though she is only interested in Keith once he’s attracted to someone else. And I don’t think that’s what the character’s arc is meant to be.

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    • Since Hughes is such a great writer, I’m quite sure this is supposed to indicate the intricacies of personal relationships and the subtlety of those interactions. But it doesn’t. Some Kind of Wonderful feels like a typical teen movie in this and only this respect; everything leads to the big event (usually a dance or party).
    • The internal logic of the characters and the narrative simply don’t make sense. I still don’t understand Keith’s actions or what the whole money subplot is about. I don’t get why he’s spending to put on a show for Amanda, I don’t get why he still wants to go out with her if he thinks it’s all a set-up, or if he does why he then acts the way he does. I don’t understand what she’s after or why they come together only when they’re being jerks to each other. I don’t get why Watts wants to tag along and I don’t get anything about how this thing ends. The ending makes every character less likable except possibly Amanda. Even Duncan seems lessened…

    On the plus side of the ledger, the acting is quite good. Stoltz, Thompson and especially Masterson are excellent, though I wish they had a longer run-time to let things simmer a bit more. It was great to see Springfield, MA native John Ashton get a role that let him show that he’s more than just a hard-ass; he’s really been under-utilized over his career. Elias Koteas is a lot of fun as the tough-guy Duncan, justifying the sizable amount of screen-time for such a minor character.

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    The music is also quite good; it even has two separate versions of the Stones’ Miss Amanda Jones – the source of the character’s name, I presume. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not. When I heard The March Violets version I actually groaned, not recognizing the original tune and thinking they’d written a theme song for the milquetoast character. But the original recording effectively anchors the pre-date montage. The opening credits sequence works very well, too.

    Despite all of the above objections, I can’t be too hard on Some Kind of Wonderful. I can recognize the bones of a better movie in here, and more importantly I know enough that these things never quite play out as well after the fact. When the film was released in 1987 I’m sure it was incredibly meaningful to a lot of people – some of my friends among them – and I probably would have gotten more out of it at the time.

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    The really funny thing is that I actually have grown to appreciate this film more in the weeks since I watched it. As I wrote this piece and looked for images and quotes and just generally reflected more on it, I found myself re-evaluating my earlier criticism. While I still steadfastly insist that Some Kind of Wonderful is a hurried and unsubtle mess, as I’ve let the film rest in my head for a bit I’ve come to respect what they’re going for here. If you look at the film as a selection of “John Hughes” moments rather than the cohesive film that it isn’t you can find some good stuff here. That’s without re-watching it. Funny how that happens with movies sometimes; they take on additional value or meaning if you leave yourself time to let them settle in your mind. Of course, I’d argue that if the filmmakers had taken that same advice about leaving room to let things slowly germinate, I wouldn’t have had to deal with such a mixed bag in the first place…

    Some Kind of Wonderful

    Poster:

    Trailer:

    Bechdel Test:

    Pass

    The Representation Test Score: C (5 pts)

    (http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

    Some Kind of Wonderful Representation Test

    [schema type=”movie” name=”Some Kind of Wonderful” description=”A young tomboy, Watts, finds her feelings for her best friend, Keith, run deeper than just friendship when he gets a date with the most popular girl in school. Unfortunately, the girl’s old boyfriend, who is from the rich section of town, is unable to let go of her, and plans to get back at Keith.” director=”Howard Deutch” producer=”John Hughes” actor_1=”Eric Stoltz” actor_2=”Mary Stuart Masterson” actor_3=”Lea Thompson” ]

    Main Cast Eric Stoltz Keith Nelson, Mary Stuart Masterson Watts, Lea Thompson Amanda Jones, Craig Sheffer Hardy Jenns
    Rating PG-13
    Release Date Fri 27 Feb 1987 UTC
    Director Howard Deutch
    Genres Drama, Romance
    Plot A young tomboy, Watts, finds her feelings for her best friend, Keith, run deeper than just friendship…
    Poster Some Kind of Wonderful
    Runtime 95
    Tagline Before they could stand together, they had to stand alone.
    Writers John Hughes (written by)
    Year 1987
  • Jim Henson’s The Storyteller (1987)

    Jim Henson’s The Storyteller (1987)

    140 Character Review – #140RVW

    Wonderful series that would be ripe for a remake. Great use of technology of the time & wonderful art direction bring these tales to life…

    Jim Henson's The Storyteller

    Spoiler-free Review of Jim Henson’s The Storyteller:

    I remember a few episodes of this series airing on tv when I was in high school. It was on at irregular times and some of the episodes never aired. Many people never saw it. I would tell friends in vain about this amazing tale of a soldier who captured Death, but never could show it to them.

    The complete run of nine episodes of the show, plus four more episodes of Greek Myths (in which the Storyteller was played by Michael Gambon) aired in the late 90’s on HBO, but I never saw them. I had to wait for these to come out on dvd in 2003. But it’s probably better this way, since once you’ve seen one episode you can’t wait to start another.

    What an amazing series. Conceived of by his daughter Lisa Henson after taking a folklore class in college, it really was an ambitious project. Each episode really is like a mini-movie, far beyond the scope of a tv show back then, and maybe even now.

    As was customary with his work, Henson pushed the boundaries of what was possible in storytelling by always exploring new technologies. This led to a truly unique visual look to the series, one that has never been repeated. There are silhouettes, projected images, puppetry, green screen and a host of both in-camera and post production techniques employed. And the most important thing here is that these are all for the advancement of the stories. These were not technical exercises by a skilled filmmaker; all the work serves the stories and communicating in new ways the old tales.

    I love the look of The Storyteller, but I wouldn’t be against an update. The series was shot on film, but is not of a high quality due to the post production processing work (I presume). Maybe they could even get John Hurt to reprise his role and film new stories!

    An absolute masterwork that I rewatch regularly, save the best place by the fire for The Storyteller…

    Jim Henson's The Storyteller

    The nine episodes:

    • Hans My Hedgehog – the pilot episode
    • Fearnot
    • A Story Short
    • The Luck Child
    • The Heartless Giant
    • The Soldier and Death
    • The True Bride
    • Sapsorrow
    • The Three Ravens
    • Sapsorrow
    Trailers for a few of the episodes:

    Bechdel Test:

    Pass – for the most part. This rating and that of the Representation Test are based on the whole series.

    The Representation Test Score: B (7 pts)

    (http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

    Representation Test
    [schema type=”movie” name=”Jim Henson’s The Storyteller” ]

    Main Cast John Hurt The Storyteller (9 episodes, 1987-1988), Brian Henson Storyteller’s Dog/Devil/Griffin (9 episodes, 1987-1988), Frederick Warder Giant/Half Man/Troll/Trollop (3 episodes, 1987-1988), David Greenaway Badger/Bird/Birds/Lion/Salmon/Squirrel/Wolf (3 episodes, 1988)
    Rating G
    Release Date Sun 15 May 1988 UTC
    Director
    Genres Fantasy
    Plot An old storyteller tells European folk tales to his sarcastic dog.
    Poster The Storyteller
    Runtime 225
    Tagline
    Writers Jim Henson (creator)
    Year 1987
  • Withnail & I (1987)

    Withnail & I (1987)

    #140RVW

    The 8th Doctor & the Spice Girls manager abandon their cesspool of a flat for a drunken holiday in the country. British hilarity ensues…

    Withnail & I

    What’s more:

    I have a theory about niche movies. It’s really more of an opinion than the theory, I suppose, and it extends well beyond movies. It runs basically thus: you really only need one of each, and whichever one you are exposed to first is the one for you. It doesn’t matter how good anything you see later is, it will seem derivative and unnecessary, even if what you see subsequently was actually made first.

    This is true for mopey English bands, Delta blues singers, fantasy authors, kung-fu masters, edgy stand-up comics, ballpoint pens, procedural cop shows, impressionist painters, gangsta rappers, architects, you name it. It doesn’t really make much difference which one you pick, as long as you have one. You like Hüsker Dü? Great, me too. But I prefer The Replacements. I know there are probably better slasher flicks than Halloween, but that’s the one I saw first. Grendizer over Voltron, X-Files over Kolchak, Jesus and Mary Chain over Echo and the Bunnymen, Sargent over Monet, Robert Johnson over Son House, the list goes on and on.

    Withnail & I

    So I had a rather unpleasant feeling while I watched Withnail & I. A week later and I’m still struggling with my thoughts about it. This movie came highly recommended, and I know people love it. So while I watched it somewhat disinterestedly, I strongly felt that I should have been enjoying it a lot more. And a big part of the problem is the phenomenon I’m talking about; I really only need one drugs and squalor movie, and for me it’s. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I’m not saying it’s a better movie – I just got there first. (Drugstore Cowboy is actually a better movie than either, but I think it goes beyond drugs & squalor and qualifies as non-niche.)

    Withnail & I follows the 8th Doctor and the guy who managed the Spice Girls as they abandon their cesspool of a flat for a holiday in the country, where they are completely unable to care for themselves. It’s a fish out of water story with LOTS of drinking. Unlike most drug movies, the main drug in Withnail & I is alcohol.

    Withnail & I

    The story takes place at the end of the 1960’s in England, where the mood is no longer hopeful, and the setting is perfect. As these out of work actors muddle through, their struggle is part of a larger national identity crisis. This is the ugly side of the Sixties, as the flower children come down from their clouds and are greeted by an increasingly hard and bleak world.

    This is comedy, however, and it excels on that score. The madcap misadventures of the characters are what good British comedy is made of, and writer/director Bruce Robinson’s semi-autobiographical tale makes for great entertainment. A star is born in Richard E. Grant in his very first film performance; he is absolutely captivating. Paul McGann, through no fault of his own, is relegated to the background, despite being ostensibly the lead character, both by Grant and by Richard Griffiths, who is equally wonderful as Uncle Monty.

    Withnail & I

    I’ll definitely be re-watching Withnail & I. On paper everything about it is great, and watching the trailer and reviewing quotes as I prepared this review made me remember the movie with more enjoyment than I had when I actually watched it. Maybe the problem was simply that I was tired, or that I was watching it on an empty stomach (I should have filled it with alcohol so as to better be in the appropriate mood).

    I find myself in the odd position of highly recommending a movie that I personally didn’t love. But I suppose that happens sometimes when you critique films. The Killing Fields was the best movie I hope never to see again (heartbreaking), so there is a precedent for this sort of thing. Cheers…

    Poster:

    Withnail & I

    Trailer:

    Bechdel Test:

    Fail

    Main Cast Richard E. Grant Withnail, Paul McGann & I/Marwood, Richard Griffiths Monty, Ralph Brown Danny
    Rating R
    Release Date Fri 19 Jun 1987 UTC
    Director Bruce Robinson
    Genres Comedy, Drama
    Plot London 1969 – two ‘resting’ (unemployed and unemployable) actors, Withnail and Marwood, fed up with damp…
    Poster Withnail & I
    Runtime 107
    Tagline You are cordially invited to spend a funny weekend in the English countryside. (US poster)
    Writers Bruce Robinson
    Year 1987
  • RoboCop (1987)

    RoboCop (1987)

    #140RVW

    Jesus this movie is violent. How did it ever get released? Verhoeven begins assault on American audiences. What did we ever do to the Dutch?

    Robocop

    What’s more:

    There’s a myth that movies can be “so bad it’s good”. This is complete nonsense. Bad movies are bad. Movies can be so preposterous or terribly made that you watch with the same morbid fascination that causes you to leer at car wrecks. (See “Plan 9 from Outer Space”, “Highlander 2”) Movies can also be deliberately cheesy or over the top that you are invited to laugh along. (See “Snakes on a Plane”, “Sharknado”) But these ARE bad movies. I don’t care if the filmmaker is in on the joke; they’re lousy. But I understand the appeal, and am guilty of enjoying watching them sometimes.

    Robocop

    And then there’s Paul Verhoeven. I presume he’s trying to make movies of the latter variety – he’s always got deliberate absurdist humor of what I assume is supposed to be the social commentary variety. But he either can’t commit to making intentionally ridiculous satire or he truly does think he’s making good movies – and is legendarily bad at it.

    Robocop

    Robocop is a very bad movie. I remember it well from when I last saw it as a teenager. I have no idea how I saw it, as I was definitely underage, and this thing is a hard R. Probably one of those VHS rentals that were so popular in the late 80’s. I think I probably liked it at the time. The gratuitous violence and nudity of Verhoeven’s “films” has a built-in audience with teenaged males. But, wow, does this age poorly.

    Robocop

    I try not to criticize movies for effects looking dated; that comes with the territory, and today’s great special effects often look cheesy tomorrow. So although some of these effects are just plain terrible (the mattes probably looked like crap on release day), I recognize that some were quite timely and can appreciate the skill involved.

    The production design, however, is another matter. Including a Ford Taurus as the car of the future just because it was new at the time must be one of the most short-sighted choices of all time. To be fair, time is hard on everyone. Dated choices aside, though, most of the design just looks silly and always did. Even by 80’s standards, this is a very bad looking film. Glossy in spots, everything else looks like Pittsburgh. For all the futuristic themes, it’s a very pedestrian future.

    Robocop

    And nothing can excuse the painful dialogue, acting and plot points. If you haven’t seen this in years and still have fond memories, I encourage you not to re-watch. Just keep telling yourself it was awesome and that the remake looks stupid and they never should have messed with perfection. Because sometimes it’s better to remember these things as they were.

    There’s a good story in here somewhere, but Verhoeven wasn’t the person to go looking for it. The remake can only be an improvement.

    Poster:

    Trailer:

    Bechdel Test:

    Fail

    Main Cast Peter Weller Officer Alex J. Murphy/RoboCop, Nancy Allen Officer Anne Lewis, Dan O’Herlihy (as Daniel O’Herlihy) The Old Man, Ronny Cox Dick Jones
    Rating Unrated
    Release Date Fri 17 Jul 1987 UTC
    Director Paul Verhoeven
    Genres Action, Crime, Sci-Fi
    Plot In a dystopic and crime-ridden Detroit, a terminally wounded cop returns to the force as a powerful cyborg haunted by submerged memories.
    Poster RoboCop
    Runtime 103
    Tagline Part man. Part machine. All cop. The future of law enforcement.
    Writers Edward Neumeier (written by) &, Michael Miner (written by)
    Year 1987
  • #140RVW: The Princess Bride (1987)

    #140RVW: The Princess Bride (1987)

    Not listing this among the funniest films of all time would be inconcievable. Greatest duel in movie history. Improves with each viewing…

    The Princess Bride

    Poster:

    Trailer: