love

Author Topic: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts  (Read 395742 times)

BlueVoid

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1841
    • Movie Fodder
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1840 on: July 28, 2012, 07:45:21 PM »

Full Metal Jacket
Stanley Kubrick
1987
Beavermoose's Round 1 verdict
Flieger's Round 2 verdict

This was not the war movie I thought I was going to get. I'm not sure how I thought 'Full Metal Jacket' would manifest, but a war movie by Stanley Kubrick was bound to be captivating. And it absolutely was. From the first scene I was hooked. I was absolutely glued to the screen as without any fanfare, narration or introduction of any sort we see some trainees getting their heads shaved. In a sense, I felt like I was there with them. Disoriented and without really knowing what I was in for, watching lamely as the hair drops lifelessly and unceremoniously to the floor. The last vestiges of personality and individuality stripped off. The next thing I know there is a Drill Sargent screaming obscenities and reducing the new recruits to cowering shells of their former selves. Their feelings do not matter, since they aren't human. Not anymore. They aren't soldiers either. Not yet. They are maggots.

This is how we are introduced to the film. As I said, I wasn't expecting this kind of war movie. This is probably exactly the reaction Kubrick was going for. My expectations are just like the soldiers who enter boot camp wanting to be killers and who have a preconceived notion of war. What actually happens is much different then any fantasy dreamed up. This isn't about plot. Not in the least. It could have been about Vietnam, the Korean War, World War II, Afghanistan. It doesn't matter the war, it's the same brutal and dehumanizing outcome. This is about the soldier. It's about their struggle to keep some humanity, and to keep their sanity. It's an insight into the mindset of a soldier. We see how they are leveled down to nothing, to below nothing even, in boot camp. They are reprogrammed to obey orders and distance themselves from any personal feelings or thoughts. They're life is over, they now live for the Marines.

I've read a lot about people loving the first half of this movie and not liking the second half at all. I don't understand this criticism of the movie. The second half brings them into actual combat in Vietnam. They have passed the test. They are now Marines with their guns packed full of those deadly full metal jackets. They have been through hell already to get there, trained to be hard killers. This training is at odds with the news reports and media coverage of the war. There is doubt cast upon what they are doing. Some soften and want peace while others put on a mask of brutality, grinning eagerly at the chance to kill anything. But when it comes down to it, whether they are peace loving or kill seekers, when their lives are on the line they are all brothers, doing what they must to survive.

I think where the film falters is in the details. There are some key moments that fall apart because they are overdone or overplayed. There are times where Kubrick is heavy handed with his themes. At first I was delighted when I saw the Joker with "Born To Kill" painted on his helmet and a peace button on his jacket. Clever, I thought. A nice, very subtle clue into what Kubrick is really after, the duality of a soldier. Unfortunately he then devotes several minutes pointing this out and spelling everything out for you in great detail. It's completely unnecessary and it undermines the entire point. This happens several times throughout the film, where I think less would have been much more effective. There are some truly powerful scenes, but an equal amount which are besmirched by being overly on the nose. Despite this, its still an absolutely engrossing movie. I hesitate to even call it a war movie. It's a solder movie.






The Last Temptation of Christ
Martin Scorsese
1988
Noke's round 1 verdict
GothamCity's round 2 verdict


Who is Jesus? Let's suspend any personal beliefs and pretend that Jesus was actually the son of God as it is written in the Bible. He is a fascinating character. A powerful symbol to millions, a god who was a man, a leader of a revolution. What I find most intriguing is that this man, this icon, lived in a world not so far past. His story is rooted in a undeniably real world of Roman emperors and Jewish oppression. Among the many who claimed to be the messiah, this man rose above and changed the world forever. This man. When we see depictions of Jesus in books, paintings, and film he is fairly one dimensional and not a lot of detail is given on his actual life. Sure, he was a spiritual leader, and phenomenal speaker, but where is his humanity? What was he like in his worst times? What was his favorite food? What were his faults? I'm interested in the mortal man, not the deity.

It's this kind of interest in Jesus that intrigued me about Martin Scorsese's take on the man. From the initial title card we are informed that this is a work of fiction and that it does not follow the gospel. Scorsese definitely goes all in with his take on Jesus' life and makes some very bold departures from the Bible. I respect his attempt to show a Jesus who does have faults. Who makes mistakes, and who struggles. It doesn't matter where he takes the story, and how far from the gospel he goes. The Bible is all about symbolism, so why can't a fictional account of his life also be? Sure, maybe they are far from the 'truth', but it gets the point across. Every man struggles, and fears, and Jesus was no different. To me, that version of Jesus is even more inspiring.

So up until this point in my review, you probably think I loved the movie. The truth is as much as I wanted this to be a great movie, it was not for me. I had a lot of problems with it. I think it had all the components to be a hugely impacting movie, but it fell well short. On a cinematic level, the movie was all over the place. Scorsese was on a tight shooting schedule, and it shows. There some really brilliant scenes, but most seemed sloppy and just felt a bit off. I wanted a movie that tackles this kind of subject to feel epic, and it doesn't, it felt slight. A big part of the reason could have been the acting. While I think Willem Dafoe was excellent as Jesus, the rest of the cast was actually quite bad. I couldn't tell if Harvey Keitel knew he was in a biblical story or a Mobster flick. The actors felt like they were in completely different movies from one another and it caused a disharmony which I had a hard time getting past.

More troubling was how the character of Jesus was handled. I wanted to know a flawed Jesus, not a buffoon. Instead of coming across as conflicted he came off as whiny, self-important and needy. Even when he was gathering his followers and inspiring people he came across as weak, needing his followers to never leave his side. Nothing about him was inspiring. Scorsese seemed to go too far in one direction, and created a character who was too fragile and too flawed. By going too far in one direction it unbalances Jesus and I think the entire point is lost. I can respect a man who has sins and who makes mistakes, but I could not respect this version of Jesus.





Verdict: This was one juggernaut of a matchup. Two of the best directors of the last half century going head to head. Going in, I was very apprehensive having to send one of these films packing, but after watching the movies there is a clear winner. Full Metal Jacket moves on.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 09:04:40 PM by BlueVoid »
Former blog on FlickChart: The Depths of Obscurity
Letterboxd 
iCM
Twitter

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1841 on: July 28, 2012, 08:50:20 PM »
I'm so glad I got to read this BlueVoid. Your skilled descriptions and observations gave me a clear view into these movies.

BlueVoid

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1841
    • Movie Fodder
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1842 on: July 28, 2012, 10:06:34 PM »
I'm so glad I got to read this BlueVoid. Your skilled descriptions and observations gave me a clear view into these movies.

Thanks Sandy!
Former blog on FlickChart: The Depths of Obscurity
Letterboxd 
iCM
Twitter

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1843 on: July 31, 2012, 09:38:48 AM »
Nice job, BV. I'm a little bummed to see The Last Temptation of Christ go because I've never seen it and was hoping to catch it here.
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1844 on: July 31, 2012, 11:52:32 AM »
Nice job, BV. I'm a little bummed to see The Last Temptation of Christ go because I've never seen it and was hoping to catch it here.


Well... if anything going to be resurrected it's that one.


mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1845 on: July 31, 2012, 01:11:51 PM »
 :)
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

Beavermoose

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
  • Samsonite! I was way off!
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1846 on: August 01, 2012, 05:32:15 PM »
I've copied/edited my E.T. review from the marathon I did with Bondo about 2 years ago.

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (Steven Spielberg, 1982)

I remember having watched E.T. as a child and being very bothered by the ending; so much so that I ended up not liking the film. Why couldn't E.T. stay on earth, why didn't Elliot go with him, why did they have to split up? Instead of being sad that E.T. had to leave I was angry and frustrated, I decided that the film was stupid for having them split up and that the whole film was negated by this fact. Watching it now I realize how wrong I was, how Spielberg had completely succeeded. He'd succeeded in creating a friendship so strong that it was able to elicit such a major powerful reaction from 5 year old me. It wasn't that I never cared for the movie, but that I cared too much.
I'm impressed by how Spielberg can do a fun action adventure movie one year and a heart warming sci-fi family film the next yet still appeal to the same large audience. E.T. was the highest grossing movie of all time when it was released yet these days a film like that would never be considered a blockbuster. Where are the explosions and the cool one liners. There are none.
Yet there is a reason why Spielberg is King Blockbuster. The line drawn from E.T. to the films of today would not be to J.J. Abrahms or Micheal Bay, but to the guys at Pixar. They are the ones making these high grossing family friendly films these day, yet people never really refer to Pixar films as Blockbusters.
E.T. is a Pixar quality family film remnant of an era when the word Blockbuster meant something more than mindless action. Spielberg really is the King.


Top Secret!

How did this movie beat Ferris Bueller...?
Its mildly amusing, and although it is the same vein as Mel Brooks' parodies I doesn't come close to being as funny as those films. Kilmer is good as the cheezy pop star and some of the gags are pretty clever and intricate, (Theres a scene played entirely in reverse!) but overall I didn't really laugh that much. This is a passable film.


Verdict: E.T. moves on.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1847 on: August 02, 2012, 01:21:27 AM »
That marathon was all leading to this very moment.

I, of course, would have picked Top Secret here.

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12730
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1848 on: August 02, 2012, 04:16:54 AM »
Definitely the correct verdict. I remember being so disappointed with Top Secret when it came out, not a patch on Flying High (Airplane!).

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: 1980s US Bracket: Verdicts
« Reply #1849 on: September 20, 2012, 03:22:49 AM »
White Dog (1982)

It’s weird to watch this film for the 80s US bracket realizing that the first time it was officially available to be watched in the US was in 2008. Focusing on a “white dog” both literally, it is a white furred German shepherd, and figuratively, as it has been trained to attack black people, the film was shelved by Paramount under fear that it would be considered a racist film. While it is a film that puts forth highly debatable views of racism, it would be a pretty outstanding stretch to say the film somehow promotes racism. Unfortunately, it’s not a particularly well made film either.

Outside some awkward uses of slow-motion, there’s not to much in the visual look of the film that betrays a lack of quality but a combination of a weak script and poor acting leave it hamstrung as a piece of entertainment. That’s a hard thing for even the deepest film to overcome. Keys (Paul Winfield) provides the sole salvageable performance, albeit playing to the “magical negro” type as the animal trainer determined to cure the dog of its conditioned racism. Contrary to the other characters, black and white alike, prepared to put the dog down, or the version of the character in the source novel that seeks to use the dog for his racial vengeance, Keys is the holy figure with endless optimism and patience.

I imagine where you come down on White Dog as a commentary on racism will depend on whether you prefer clarity or ambiguity out of a film. The film is heavy-handed to the degree that the symbolism is obvious, but I don’t feel like it was using this symbolism to make a clear statement of belief. For all the talk of the dog being racially trained, we see the dog attack a white man who tries to rape Julie (Kristy McNichol) early in the film. There is another instance later where the strictly racial interpretation falls down into a muddle. I neither find a profound message in the film nor find a lot of room to explore on my own. It just doesn’t come together.

2/5

Verdict: I had hoped to rewatch Full Metal Jacket because why not use the brackets as an excuse to rewatch a film that was kicking around the bottom of my top-100 after my first viewing. This is why the write-up has been delayed, in spite my announcing my verdict a while ago to keep things moving. Unfortunately, the copy at my library got lost before I could a shot at it. I could of course get it from Netflix but let's not belabor this, Full Metal Jacket wins by a landslide.

 

love