mrcowboysmovieroom

[mrcowboysmovieroom]

Staying Alive (1983)

Directed by: Sylvester Stallone Genre: Romance, drama (horror.. im kidding but really)

CW: SA is mentioned briefly as it pertains to this movie and Saturday Night Fever.

The only thing this movie improves upon it's predecessor, is that it's a much shorter runtime.

Staying Alive attracted me because it looked bad and I was obsessed with how incongruous it feels for Sylvester Stallone to have directed it. The screenshots I was seeing of Travolta scantily clad in torn clothing while arms reach for him were too appealing for me to simply ignore them. In fact, it low-key reminded me of the poster for Barbarella which is a movie I do love the appearance of.

Of course, I couldn't simply watch the sequel to a movie I hadn't seen before, so I first watched Saturday Night Fever from 1977. Saturday Night Fever, faultless it is not, was still a pretty swell watching experience. But it definitely impacted how I was to see the sequel. And how could it not?

When the emotional through-line of the film is class struggles, racism, and especially sexism, then it's hard not to notice how a sequel carries on with those themes.

Staying Alive's solution is largely to ignore these things. Or ignore them in part. There is still some pointing and gesturing at the class disparity between Tony (Travolta) and those around him, especially Laura (Finola Hughes). Sexism is also very much alive and well but, unlike SNF, there isn't really a point to these themes and conflicts being there or a lesson we are meant to learn.

SNF managed to make the character of Tony still a tad likeable despite it all. In Staying Alive I feel none of this goodwill. SNF ended with a promise of change and self awareness. Staying Alive begins with a Tony as problematic as he started. There is something macabre about it to be honest. Between those six years of lost time, Tony spurned Stephanie for good and has now been meandering around Manhattan terrorizing women, jaunting about like a gangly, unsteady gazelle. At times he is borderline terrifying, and you'd expect his character to feel right at home as the dangerous stalker in some horror flick.

Somehow he still has a girlfriend named Jackie (Cynthia Rhodes), whom he decides to cheat on very immediately into this movie. And despite all logic, she still gives him a chance, not only to be her friend but picks up dating him again. And even in the end he cant help himself. He has to kiss Laura without her consent for what? To prove he can? Both women end the movie interested in him, though he decides to commit to Jackie.

On to Laura, she is a pseudo antagonist. She's meant to be annoying and bitchy, but can you really fault her? She has to deal with Tony this whole movie and that is so much to ask of anyone. Her character is so inappropriately handled. Tony expects much from her and ignores all her very DIRECT declarations that she is not at all interested in him in a long term sense at this point. He makes it her fault, and in turn, the movie never sees him serve time for his poor behavior towards her. At times she or someone else will call him out on it, but you never see his character learn from this behavior. After he forces a kiss on Laura, she apologizes to him and he doesn't even bother to say it back himself, which is the LEAST of what he should be doing.

Tony IS the bad guy. He's annoying and rude to her, grabs her and touches her without permission, and is just all around unapologetic for any of it. It feels like he only really stops bothering with her because Jackie's still throwing herself at him, and it gives him a sense of power to see Laura wanting him.

AND THAT'S NOT TO MENTION THE DANCING. SNF almost manages to endear itself to me PURELY for the dancing. Travolta's little disco floor scene (you know the one) is the best part of the movie. In this movie, the dancing is all so meeehhhhh. We spend all this time building up the final Broadway show, and the resulting product was so underwhelming.

If this movie had been about male entitlement and ego, it would have been so perfect, but it's not about that even though it so perfectly depicted it. Feeling like a 2/10 on this one.

#staying alive #staying alive 1983 #80s movie #john travolta #Finola Hughes #Cynthia Rhodes #saturday night fever

[mrcowboysmovieroom]

The Mean Season (1985)

Directed by: Phillip Borsos Genre: Crime, thriller

CW: None

The Mean Season is a movie you've likely never seen personally (I mean especially in this day and age, good god) but you've definitely seen it somewhere else. Which is to say, you've probably seen a movie damn similar and likely better. What The Mean Season fails to give you in execution, it gives you in potential, which makes for a disappointing and rather lackluster watching experience.

So, to be transparent, I will admit right now that the reason I was watching this movie was entirely because it stars Kurt Russell. It also turns out I have already seen this film, which is not a promising revelation to have. You sort of want your thrilling crime drama to be memorable.

In any case the best way to illustrate the issues this movie has is to describe them in agonizing detail.

Kurt Russell plays Malcolm Anderson. He's a journalist who's feeling pretty burnt out by his job, but gets pulled into do one last big story when a serial killer who Malcolm recently reported on, contacts him about continuing to write about his future exploits.

So honestly, a promising start but I wouldn't call it groundbreaking. The dynamic is interesting though, and you can tell as the movie goes on that there was meant to be something more intriguing to their relationship.

See, the killer calls Malcolm after one of his murders so that Mal can get the scoop first. The killer likes his writing style, and in calling him, is giving him more veracity and also making the murders more sensational.

The killer's agenda, so far as we will ever understand, is to be the story. He gets mad later when more attention is on Malcolm's relationship to the case/killer later on in the film.

He also reportedly feels a certain sort of kinship with Malcolm, or feels as though Malcolm understands him and this is interesting in concept. Like obviously. The dichotomy between the killer and the journalist who writes for him is a great idea. Journalists in media have had a lot of varying stereotypes about them. At once they might be noble truth seekers, and then again, they are corruptible sensationalists who are motivated by a good story and nothing more. Think like Ace in the Hole (1951).

So it makes sense that a story would take advantage of those conflicting values.

Throughout the movie we get the impression that Malcolm's morals are supposed to be called into question. I mean characters do literally call them into question but it doesn't actually feel like anything about his character is really controversial or even slightly questionable.

His girlfriend, Christine (Mariel Hemingway), on a couple occasions talks as if he's becoming an entirely different person but we don't actually see any sort of transformation in his character so it makes her character feel weak as a result.

I should say now that acting wise, everyone does a good job. The issue isn't so much with any performance but with the story itself. It doesn't spend enough time exploring the character development of Malcolm and we don't really see his personal values get compromised.

Just that difference alone would have made this film significantly better than it is. The ending climax sees the killer, now known as Alan Delour (Richard Jordan), confronting Malcolm and accusing him of knowing him best. And even later Malcolm suggests that Alan can't kill him because who else gets him like he does?

And this scene falls flat because we keep getting told that something has happened with Malcolm, but we never see it. Despite the lack of character going on in the writing, Kurt Russell does a very good job playing a despondent man worried his girlfriend is dead. Of course, Kurt Russell is pretty good at this as Breakdown (1997) and Unlawful Entry (1992) will prove.

So all in all, is it worth watching? Uhhhhhhhhhhhh I mean it depends... If you're watching it so that you can see Kurt Russell- yes :) But also there are better movies with him in it playing a very similar character.

Do you just want to see a crime/mystery movie? Well, there are way more of those than there are Kurt Russell films so I won't say no, but there is less reason to see this if that's the case. It's not a horrible movie, but it's also not groundbreaking, and as I said before, you've likely seen a better version of this film already.

So given that, I'm feeling a 6/10.

#kurt russell #the mean season 1985 #80s movie #mariel hemingway #andy garcía #richard jordan #richard masur

[mrcowboysmovieroom]

Compañeros (1970)

Directed by: Sergio Corbucci Genre: Western

CW: None

I love a movie that can get me to say things like, "And then they torture him with a guinea pig who's claws are reportedly strong enough to dig through solid ground."

Like what an interesting thought to have while watching a movie! It's exactly what happens in it. If that sounds too silly to be enjoyable- fear not! You are in good hands.

Compañeros starts at the end with Lola (Iris Berben) running through a mostly empty looking town to its train station where two men face off. Between them, a statue. One of them calls the other Penguin. Interesting. It's a good place to start. It has made me adequately curious.

The movie is set during the Mexican Revolution and right after the flash forward, we see one of our two men, Vasco (Tomas Milian), celebrating with his men in town after a successful revolt. They are drinking and shooting effigies of the president. Lola is there as well though she has much more hair than she did in the intro scene. She meets Vasco first and he assaults her which I must say felt completely unnecessary. She doesn’t need a reason to dislike him. She doesn't subscribe to his use of violence to win the revolution, and we later find out she leads a different band of rebels. Not to mention the fact that Vasco will soon cut off her hair which feels a far more appropriate reason for her to immediately dislike him.

Of note here is that I watched a slightly shorter version of this movie. I only know this because there is a boot shining scene where Mongo (José Bódalo), one of the antagonists, hires Vasco to his cause at about this point in the movie. It was not in the version I watched on Tubi. All things considered, I do think that such a scene is unnecessary for establishing the characters of Vasco and Mongo. I don't know if there were any other changes between the two versions but the difference in runtime was just about 5 minutes so I don't suspect a whole lot got cut.

At the train station a Polish mercenary is arriving in the same town. His name is Yodlaf Peterson (Franco Nero) but you probably won't remember that and it's frankly unimportant because his real name is the pet name Vasco gives him- Penguin.

Vasco and Penguin do not hit it off, in fact it seems Vasco was soon to kill Penguin if not for Mongo showing up shortly thereafter. Penguin is here to sell guns to Mongo after all.

Of course would you look at that? The money he's to be paid is being kept in a safe that no one can get into and the only man who knows the combination is another revolutionary named Xantos (Fernando Rey) who is currently in Texas. Xantos practices a no violence approach and it's implied at this point that Mongo really only cares about the money he could make from the revolution and not its values.

Penguin resolves that he will track down this Xantos entirely with the intention of charging Mongo more and Mongo makes Vasco go with him. So, now about thirty minutes in, our two have teamed up. I really like the beginning of this movie for the most part. In particular, Penguin has a lot of charming scenes where he worsens his relations with Vaso and is just generally entertaining.

Which on that- this movie is a very homoerotic western. It’s not Catlow (1971) levels of homoeroticism but by god it’s close! Granted, this genre is sort of built for homoeroticism. Your leads are almost always men so all your most important scenes and moments of character development are about, for, and between men. It’s incredibly easy to project a romantic interpretation onto that. But Compañeros seems unusually romantic at some points. For example, in the beginning of the movie Penguin gives a dollar to Vasco, and Vasco proceeds to wear it as a necklace the whole rest of the movie. And the coin comes back a lot! There is also the fact that save one another frequently. It does one well to remember that if this were any other genre and one of the two was a woman, they would be falling in love by the end of the movie.

Vasco and Penguin start their journey on horseback and then switch to the train. The scene is a little cute actually because they're just nestled together in the seat. Unfortunately these two cannot escape trouble for long and that comes in the way of Lola and her rebels. The pair get away and back on the train but then Penguin disconnects the cars from the engine, leaving Vasco on his own.

Now the meat and potatoes of this movie is a lot of fun! I haven’t encountered a western villain this hokey in awhile and I must say that Jack Palance as John, the man with a wooden hand, is utterly brilliant. He’s slimy, conniving, and somehow as sinister as he is silly. He wears a cape and has a falcon named Marsha as a familiar.

Him and Yodlaf have history. In a biblical sense you might say. And I mean that as both a suggestive joke about their relationship, but also as a pun on the actual events that transpired between them.You see, on their last job together Penguin left John for dead and John was literally crucified. He only managed to get away because Marsha ate through his hand. What a backstory!

Once Penguin gets off the train he sees Marsha and John. It’s here we learn of his amazing backstory and John leaves Penguin precariously hung from a post where he must balance on a barrel or choke to death. Marsha stands nearby waiting to eat him or something. So of course, because this is a movie, Vasco shows up in time to gloat and then save his life.

I really love this scene. It was used in some iterations of the posters. Giving very Spider-man and MJ. Vasco even comments on how beautiful and like the sky Penguin's eyes are.

Now without a train we have an excuse for this bumbling journey to last longer and for more chaos to ensue. This is your Midnight Run of cowboy movies if you will. The actual goal is straightforward but the progress our leads make is bumbling because of their clashing personalities and outside forces (John and both Mexican and American armies) wanting to thwart their efforts. I have a soft spot for movies like this.

In town, Penguin meets with a prostitute he knows. She helps them get into a military camp to break out Xantos but before she does that, Penguin suggests she sleep with Vasco. When Penguin goes to find Vasco later, he’s in a state of shock lying on the bed with his boots off and lipstick on his face muttering about how she’s blonde everywhere. When Penguin asks what happened, the prostitute replies, “It’s too much of a shock, I guess.” I do not know if Vasco will beat the allegations…

But hey, neither is Penguin because while saving Xantos he announces himself by saying “I’m the Swede, but they call me Penguin.”

Saving Xantos is an easier task than some of the other events that befall our leads and so about an hour in we are on our way back to Mongo. Xantos is very steadfast in his beliefs and during their ride repeatedly tries to talk to Vasco and convince him that Mongo doesn’t have his best interests at heart.

Xantos doesn’t try to convince Penguin because Penguin will literally join anyone’s side for whichever slice of the pie is bigger. He’s consistent to say the least, and in a way perfectly reliable because of it.

Penguin tries to abandon Vasco overnight and this time it seems to work! Vasco gets caught by John and this is where we see the vile, contemptible guinea pig that is said to render flesh. It is put in a basket tied to Vasco’s bare chest. At first Vasco laughs because it’s ticklish, but then he begins to scream and call out for Penguin. Xantos refuses to go onward without saving Vasco and so Penguin goes to get him back.

Back on the road again, Xantos finds baby turtles. He remarks how unusual it is for this breed of turtle to be here and begins to collect them all. This seems like a really odd scene but actually it is hilariously relevant because when Xantos gets captured by John while running away from our two boys, he starts to leave the turtles like bread crumbs. This movie has a lot of things in it that are so beyond expectations.

Now with the aid of Lola, our team goes to get Xantos. Following that, John makes a move on Mongo and suggests they team up and bait Xantos in to kill him. John is hoping to get the Penguin with him.

So thus we are led into our final confrontation! Or well sort of. It sort of feels like this movie ends ten times but we’ll get to that. Xantos goes alone to confront Mongo and Penguin and Vasco both follow. Penguin takes a different route so he can spot John’s trap for Xantos and fires on the supports of the tower he’s in. Mongo’s men come all running out and basically Vasco and Penguin take down the lot of them. During this scene Vasco gets fatally shot, but what do ya know? THE BULLET HIT THE DOLLAR COIN HE WEARS AROUND HIS NECK.

Something about this scene is like what I imagine seeing a unicorn would be like. Rapturous and euphoric, and at the same time I cannot believe it’s happening and that my eyes and ears beheld it.

At the end of the fight Mongo gives up. He’s alone anyway so, yeah he better. Xantos convinces Vasco not to kill him, though the effort is moot because Mongo proves to be treacherous again. He’s about to kill Xantos when he is fired upon by all of Xantos’ other rebels who've finally shown up. Xantos then gives Penguin the combination for the safe and it turns out it didn’t have any money in it. Just the promise of money. Penguin looks like he’s about to finally snap but he soon reconciles the loss in a different way.

You see all the while Vasco and Lola have been falling in love. Or I mean I guess? Vasco is suddenly far more appealing when he’s on the write side of the revolution and yeah it sucked when he cut off her hair, but it was really romantic when he revealed he’d been storing it under his hat to remind him of her.

I expected this turn of events from the movie, but it doesn’t really justify it. I think the actors do fine together and convince me this matters, but the events that transpire between them leave a lot to be desired. I mentioned how Vasco and Lola meet and that’s sort of a huge vibe killer for their relationship to me. I really think the movie would have made way more sense if that scene just wasn’t in there at all. Vasco doesn’t really seem the type of person to act that way for the entire rest of the film and his removing her hair worked better on its own.

But I digress, they are in love now and Lola will only be with him if they get married. They have no priest but they instead will use a statue of San Bernardino. As they are finishing their vows, from the roof Penguin steals the statue and cackles. You see, it was the only thing of value in the town and he could never leave empty handed and now we see our character back in the beginning. They are about to have a duel but then John and his couple remaining men catch up to them, and Vasco and Penguin shoot them instead of each other.

Xantos is killed by John and Vasco invites Penguin to fight with him. Penguin declines but as he’s leaving he sees the Mexican army on its way so he rides back into town to join them for an incoming fight, shouting “Compañeros! Vamos a mator, Compañeros!” Vasco smiles, beautifully I might add, and the movie ends.

Really good stuff. Really great stuff! This was an absolutely blast of a good time. I did enjoy myself a lot while watching it. I don’t know if the movie will hold up as well on rewatches though. This movie is just under two hours and sometimes you can really feel that runtime. Most of the time you don’t feel it, but it does have moments that drag. Like the ending. Additionally some of the scenes, as mentioned already, are unnecessary. They don’t destroy my overall enjoyment of the movie but they are things I might skip when I rewatch it.

I really loved the acting, especially from Nero, Milian, and Palance. They are a blast to watch and captivated me the whole way through. The interactions between Vasco and Penguin are just full of chemistry and are very entertaining.

The score was done by Ennio Morricone whom I generally always love. This was not my favorite score by him. I liked the main theme but not so much some of the other tracks. They reminded me of scores of his I liked better from My Name is Nobody (1973) and Two Mules for Sister Sara (1970).

All in all I’m feeling this movie has earned a 6.7/10.

#gay af if you ask me #western #Spaghetti western #western movie #70s #70s movie #Compañeros #Compañeros 1970 #franco nero #Tomas Milian #Jack Palance #Fernando Rey #Iris Berben #José Bódalo #Ennio Morricone #Sergio Corbucci

[mrcowboysmovieroom]

Dragonslayer (1981)

Directed by: Matthew Robbins Genre: Fantasy, adventure

CW: None Originally written 03/29/2023

It surprises me that I had never heard of this movie till now. I happened upon its DVD in the five dollar movie bin and was very taken by it. I am not totally sure why as the cover art on my copy was not particularly attractive to me (version on the right). I think the version on the left is much cooler personally. But I suppose when you hear a name like "Dragonslayer" you think "Oh this ought to be good" even if it won't be. As it turns out however, it was good. Very good.

The story itself feels expected, though not without elements which serve to make it unique. I think, for the most part, you can very easily predict every step of this movie, but I don’t think this is inherently bad because you can be exceptionally good even if you’re predictable. That isn’t to say that the movie is lazy. It’s just that this is a fantasy movie from the 80s, and during the 70s-80s we were inundated with movies about knights, swords, wizards, and dragons. Our story starts with a group of travelers seeking out the wizard Ulrich (Ralph Richardson) to request that he face their dragon and put it down! You see, for years now virgin daughters have been sacrificed to the dragon. These girls are chosen by a lottery of sorts, their names drawn from a great big bowl at random. The idea is that there is solidarity and shared risk in this sacrifice, however the rich buy their way out of it and so do not have to lose their daughters like the poor do. Really the villagers seem more upset with this unfairness, with this abuse of power, than with the setup itself.

Ulrich agrees to help but is challenged to prove his magic by one of the king’s men who had followed the troupe of villagers. Ulrich accepts the challenge and asks that the guard stab him. Well rather hilariously, Ulrich dies, leaving behind his apprentice Galen (Peter MacNicol) and servant Hodge (Sydney Bromley). Galen, driven by a newfound sense of confidence and arrogance decides that he must carry out his mentor’s wishes and slay the dragon himself! He believes this is his path because his master’s amulet keeps mysteriously escaping the box it's put in and glowing.

Ulric’s body is burned and Hodge collects the ashes as he was instructed to by Ulric previously. He will die later too and give them to Galen, telling him to cast them into the burning lake, so you know they will come back.

In any case, Galen has his quest and about 40 minutes into the film, makes good on his word and slays the dragon! At this point he has made a friend of sorts out of one of the villagers, Valerian (Caitlin Clarke). She has been living as a man since she was born but the movie does not keep this information from us for long. About two scenes into meeting her character I figured that we would find out she was disguised as a man and eventually we see her heading to a river to bathe. The inevitable happens- Galen finds out she’s a woman- and well we know what will come of their relationship by the end of the movie.

Our first look at the dragon is almost entirely through perspective shots from its view. A maiden has been brought before its lair as the latest sacrifice and she is trying fruitlessly to free herself, getting her own blood over her dress as the chains tear into her skin. It’s a very cruel scene.

The earth rumbles and eventually, elegantly peeking over the rocks, comes a clawed hand. From here the shot changes to overhead of the beast. It is blurry so that our focus is on the girl, but we can see the muscles in the back of its neck flex and expand. It’s possibly my favorite shot of the animal. During the rest of the scene we only see its leg and tail. We shall not see its face till our climax.

The whole movie builds to this big reveal of the dragon brilliantly. The dragon stays formidable and chilling the entire time. We only get exposed to it piece at a time and we see much of its carnage from its perspective. It makes the deaths of its victims at once intimate, but also more cruel as we are put into the shoes of a creature we cannot even hope to begin to understand.

The practical effects and props are very good looking, save for when the greenscreen comes out. You will see a lot of people and things wreathed in green, especially near the end. It’s not so bad though if I’m being honest. It’s never so bothersome as to keep me from enjoying the action.

When I saw the dragon, I found myself wanting to compare it to Dragonheart’s (1996) Draco the dragon. The movies are actually aesthetically very similar, which is probably why I stared at Dragonslayer’s DVD cover for so long, transfixed in the Walmart. DH came out over a decade after DS and while being very much a campy fantasy film of the same ilk, is also a parody of said movies. The two dragons are so different from one another. Seeing them side by side is actually a really interesting look at character creation and how the shape of features evokes certain feelings in an audience.

Draco of DH (on the right) is more cat-like and round. His face is short, and his eyes are big. There is an adorable quality about this, at least comparatively. He also gets to talk, being voiced by Sean Connery, which really humanizes him for us. We get to see into his thoughts and he’s also one of our heroes. We are meant to like him and root for him.

Vermithrax Pejorative, our fiendish lizard in DS is in stark contrast. For one, her name is much cooler. She is also never humanized in any capacity. We see that she has hatchlings, and that she even seems to mourn their death, but this display isn’t shown to make us feel bad for her. We see her cruelty through her eyes. It seems that her actions, even prior to the death of her young, are beyond the call of duty if she were merely trying to raise her young. Design wise, she is much more wolfish and lean. Her face is long, her eyes small and beady. Her body often has this sweaty, grimy texture to it as well. She is sinister and threatening.

The differences this film has with Dragonheart are not really the point here- but I will say if either one of these films interests you- you will most assuredly enjoy the other.

Anyway, back to Galen. As I said, he goes about destroying the dragon early on. Or so he thinks. Really we all know that his arrogance simply leads him to believe he has and that he has in fact made the situation much worse.

The night of the dragon’s apparent slaying is one of merriment and features Valerian presenting as a woman for the first time. Galen invites her to dance and makes her feel welcome. It’s very sweet.

The festivities are interrupted by that pesky king’s guard from before. He takes Galen to the palace where the King interrogates him, takes his magic amulet, and casts him in the dungeon. During the night he is broken out and the dragon attacks the town. While in captivity he meets Princess Elspeth. He tells her that the king has been keeping her name out of the lottery all along, which she seems to have been ignorant of and, to her credit, is horrified by. As a result of the dragon being even angrier than before and attacking their town, another lottery is called. Elspeth, now aware of what has been going on for her sake, decides to make all of the lottery names her own. The king tries to stop this, but it is too late. Her name has been read to the villagers and it is expected that she will be the next sacrifice. The king, desperate to see this thwarted, then returns Galen’s amulet to him and insists he keep the princess from dying.

Galen, is back on the case and with the help of Valerian and her blacksmith father, prepares a special spear and shield of dragon scales to take into battle. Valerian and Galen talk one last time before he's on his way and they share a small kiss. And thusly, we arrive at my favorite scene. An epic battle between Galen and our dragon, which we finally get to see in full. You have no idea how exciting this scene is. It’s great! The dragon looms from out of the pool in its cave which is laden with fire, slowly and melodically. It's imposing and physical. I just love watching it move, especially as the enter different chambers of the cave. I just can't get enough of this part of the film. Watching it fills me with thrills!

Galen ends up unable to kill the dragon- his spear breaking through his efforts. He is injured but survives. Valerian, desperate to keep it that way, convinces him that there is no life for them in the village, and that they should make the best of what they have and leave. So, Galen and her prepare to go, when Galen has a vision. His second in the movie so this is not new. The vision is of a burning lake. Now… I could have sworn someone mentioned one of those in the beginning of the film....

Suddenly Galen gets it! AND... I'm gonna cut it off there... The climax of the movie is really rewarding and also unexpected. There is something very fun about the bit of subversion we get via Galen and his character arc. The dragon does die at the end, as expected. The corpse looks epic though, I must say. There's so much wet and charred flesh bits and parts of organs peeling off exposed bone. I really love seeing practical props and effects like this. I mean, they get my heart a-going pitter-patter with glee, and this movie does exactly that to me. In the end, Valerian and Galen leave together, wandering out to find their own happiness together. I just, adore this movie. In rewriting this review I am renewed with a desire to watch it again and relive the wonderful little adventure that it takes me on. My final rating is a 7/10.

#dragonslayer #dragonslayer 1981 #fantasy #fantasy movie #dragonheart #dragonheart 1996 #Peter MacNicol #Caitlin Clarke #Sydney Bromley #Ralph Richardson #80s #80s movie #80s fantasy movies

[mrcowboysmovieroom]

Bad Dreams (1988)

Directed by: Andrew Fleming Genre: Horror, thriller, psychological (SORT OF LOL.. It wants to be)

CW: Suicide and gore are in this film and I touch upon those subjects in the review pretty early on and throughout where it’s relevant. Just not in a lot of detail and no clips/images from those scenes are included. Originally written 04/10/2023

So, not bad. Not bad at all. Not to damn it by opening with such muted praise but you have to understand something about the 80s and their thriller movies okay. There were a lot of them, and a few really great ones popularized a certain look. This look. In fact, there are plenty of comparisons to be made between this and Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

To clarify there isn't anything wrong with this look, I'm just saying that they have it okay? I like the look. The look is what got me to watch this movie in the first place. However, the look can't guarantee a good film. The abundance of these types of movies means there's a lot of shit to sift through.

So is Bad Dreams good, or is it a dullard wearing the skin of a much more interesting film?

Mmmm yeah, it's good! Of course, you see my hesitation. I could certainly see myself recommending this but likely not first though. It is neither so absurdly bad or bizarre like Shocker (1989) or fantastically brilliant as to warrant much more regard than I've given it.

In any case, I am moving a little past the point. So, onto the movie.

Bad Dreams is pretty simple in its setup but it's delivered fairly well. Cynthia (Jennifer Rubin) is the only survivor of a mass suicide by the cult Unity Field. They're a religious, free-love type from the 70s. Their leader is the enigmatic Harris (Richard Lynch). He's a real weirdo, but a well performed one. He's got strange nicknames for members and calls Cynthia "love child".

The final moments of the cult feature the members having spoons of gasoline poured on them for an ironic baptism before Harris pours the rest on himself and lights up the house they're in. We learn that within Unity Field this is considered the most beautiful act that could have been taken to members within. A final act that only benevolent god could offer.

Following the incident, Cynthia is in a coma for 13 years. When she awakes she is kept in a mental hospital as no other family can be found, and she's put into regular group therapy with patients who have borderline disorders.

The facility is run by Dr. Berrisford (Harris Yulin), but the group itself is manned by his young, very adorable assistant Alex Karmen (Bruce Abbott). As is typical when movies take place in mental hospitals- each of the patients are very diversely eccentric. I don't think any of them come off as offensive portrayals and the supporting cast is pretty strong throughout.

At first, Cynthia doesn't remember much about the cult accept their mission statement and the general "good vibes" they had. But soon the medication starts, and so do the dreams. They're actually not dreams. She hallucinates while awake. So, get fucked inaccurate movie name…

Actually, the title and the taglines are frankly confusing and borderline dishonest.

"When Cynthia wakes up, she'll wish she were dead…" The movie never emphasizes her waking nor sleeping, and as I said the "dreams" aren't really dreams. The poster I included for this review makes even less sense. "The scream you don't hear... is your own." What? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN. They just have absolutely nothing to do with the events that take place in the film.

Anyway SO BACK TO THE MOVIE. This is a thriller movie so guess what? The other patients start to die. Suspiciously the deaths look like suicides or accidents but it's only happening within Cynthia's group and she happens to be there for most of them. Much of her hallucinations coincide with the murders as well, acting as premonitions but also possibly implicating her to the audience.

After all, we don't know how the fire and the struggle of waking up in another decade with no one she recognizes or cares about will manifest in her. Hallucinations or her flashbacks seem the very least of possible outcomes she could have.

Each death ranges in intensity. The grossest is the couple who fall into the turbines. It was certainly the goriest of them, but that causes it to be my favorite. The practical effects are really good in this movie too. They hold up really well, even when in the closeups.

Nearing the climax, the detective keeping an eye on Cynthia believes that she must be involved somehow. While she doesn't seem to have killed anyone herself (and it would have been impossible for her to have done so), he thinks she may have convinced them to kill themselves using that cult speak she picked up in her youth.

You see, he doesn't think she could possibly be a victim- in fact he suggests she was an accomplice. Even though she was like 13 when the fire happened. Even if she had been more directly involved as the detective suggests, it's very unrealistic to think a child could be responsible for their actions in a situation like that. You know, one where there are much stronger and scarier adults everywhere, and you've been brainwashed. But hey, maybe this is what people would have thought in the 80s and this detective actually seems reasonable.

So, to keep her from being arrested she's put in isolation by Dr. Berrisford. Alex protests that isolation is the antithesis of what she needs, but in the face of his protests Berrisford fires him. Shortly after, in his frustration Alex takes some ✨DRUGS✨ and has a violent dream of him killing Berrisford with his car. It's then that Alex realizes that something is horribly wrong! And if you want to know what- watch the movie or continue on...

Obviously PATIENTS WITH BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDERS SHOULD NOT TAKE STUFF LIKE THOSE DRUGS LMFAAOOOOO… So why were they given them?? Well Berrisford is testing his theories you see? If only someone had asked him about his theories!

He's been putting Cynthia in the center of this test, using the deaths of the other patients to act as other pawns in his research, but also to trigger her memories and get her to kill herself? I mean that is what happens, but I'm not sure why he wants her to decide to kill herself. I guess I could have missed it, but I don't think Berrisford ever says his thesis outright.

Alex puts this all together and rushes to prevent Cynthia's death, as she is the last of the group alive. First, he goes to find Cynthia in the isolation room and then gets knocked out. Slay. You are killing it Alex.

Cynthia goes to the roof with Berrisford, but she sees in his place Harris. The reveal that Berrisford is the bad guy implies that several of her hallucinations may have in fact been her witnessing Berrisford prior to the murder. Not every hallucination works this way though.

Well, just as Cynthia jumps Alex gets to the roof in time to stop her. Or well he's holding her over the edge of the building and demanding she wake up and help him pull herself up. As a part of his motivational speech he professes his love for her, which is an expected but nonetheless confusing addition.

They're implied to be attracted to one another throughout the film, but there aren't really any scenes which justify the apparent close regard he holds for her. The movie ends without them formally getting together, but it seems unnecessary altogether. But hey, that's straight people and their desire for everyone to end up in a relationship ain't it?

In the end with nothing left to do or lose, Berrisford kills himself. Over all this is a good film but it's not very exceptional in what it's doing and there is something a little underwhelming about it all. The performances really carry this movie and make it a lot more worthwhile than it might be otherwise. It would have been easy for this movie to really stink on ice. As it stands though, it's actually quite fun. So, if you like movies like this, you should give it a shot.

Final verdict; 6/10

Also interesting fun fact- Originally the Andrew Flemming wanted the end song to be Burning House of Love by X. Which in my opinion would have been even funnier and on the nose than the song they did use, Sweet Child O' Mine by Guns N' Roses. I mean how can you beat lines like:

A couple of years ago

When the smoke and flame called my name

It was a burning house of love

Yeah, a burning house of love

#bad dreams 1988 #horror #movie review #movie #bruce abbott #jennifer rubin #harris yulin #richard lynch #80s #80s movie

[mrcowboysmovieroom]

Vampires (1988)

Directed by: John Carpenter Genre: Horror, action

CW: Gore, but not any that I find too hard to stomach. It's like 80s blood splatter, heads get cut off type deal. Originally written 07/02/2023

Vampires from 1988, is a movie. It's the most movie actually. It's soooo movie core. I'm being a little mean when I say that, but it's absolutely true. This movie is very 80s and very vampire.

It commits so strongly to the image- its over the top sense of angst and melodrama are really its selling points. It's got that classic angry lead who's got a heart of gold, but a bad attitude and a dark past. It's got sweat and grime and quick quips. It's quintessential in every way. I don't think it does anything unique, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of the movies I adore are very much exactly what they seem to be and nothing more. There is an appeal for me in its lack of remark, though also a permeating sense that it's lacking something. You'll notice I said I have adored movies that are similarly in genre, but this isn't one of them. I don't hate it mind you, but nor do I feel a keen affection. In being exceptionally unexceptional, you are often just that. Just unexceptional and this movie borders on being that.

I've seen this movie a handful of times now and that means I am at least compelled enough to want to revisit it, but every time I do i am reminded of more so what it could of been than what it is and that's not really how you should feel after seeing a movie.

The issue is this movie is not as much fun as I would hope. It's campy and over the top but it could have amped up the intensity more than it does.

The performances themselves are very- ummm what's the word? Fitting? Sometimes its bad. Like when Baldwin yells while burning himself.. that sound lives in my brain rent free only because it sounds so strangely unreal that it reminds me I'm watching actors. It CRACKS me up. Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) our vampire and Jack Crow (James Woods) give the best performances as just delightfully over the top and living the roles completely. Woods did a lot of roles like this- assholes who somehow endear themselves to you (though Jack Crow is not the best of this type). Griffith, whom to my knowledge I've only seen in this, is just really playing it up. He sneers, growls, crawls, and purrs and if he did any less than that he'd be a very underwhelming vampire. It's his look too- the all black fit and long black hair, claws always out. You need to have at least all that.

In the beginning of the movie Jack and his team successfully empty out a vampire nest in New Mexico. They expect to find a master vampire there (the one who turned all the vampires within), but they don't. This is noted as bizarre and as an audience we know that this means the master will be coming around in no time at all. Still though, the hunt is considered a success and the team decide to celebrate at a local motel. Jack is basically the only one who continues to be made uncomfortable by the lack of the master vampire being present though. It's this gut feeling which keeps him away from the main party for a bit.

Of course, while his back is turned an extra guest arrives.. Wouldn't you know it's that master vampire! It's Valek, though for right now his name goes unknown. We will eventually come to learn that he is the very first vampire. He slaughters the entire team with the exception of Montoya (Daniel Baldwin). Valek basically lets them get away (for attention of course) and greets Jack by his full name (important). The only other survivor is a prostitute hired for the party called Katrina (Sheryl Lee). She's been bitten by Valek though and will turn in a matter of days. As an aside I really like Katrina. She might be my favorite character even though she doesn’t do a lot. I find her to be more grounded, and additionally very sympathetic. She and Montoya have a romance arc of sorts. Which is to say, the movie says they are in love but I don’t really see any chemistry there and I don’t care about their relationship. Katrina is unfortunately a punching bag in this movie.

Jack and Montoya spend a good chunk of the movie pushing, hitting, and yelling at her. There are intense stakes (aha…) at hand, but she’s a victim in this, and that is never appreciated by anyone else in the movie. To them, the fact that she's bitten makes her immediately expendable, especially to Jack. She may as well be just an object. And no one learns from this lesson either. Montoya has a crush on her but that shouldn’t be his motivation for wanting to treat her well. He should just not be an asshole. Somewhere in this it feels like there ought to of been some self aware commentary. It's not like women in real life need to be bitten by a vampire to be treated as objects. The fact that this movie never does anything with this possible critique is something that really disappoints me and serves to push this film toward a lower rating for me. Anyway, back to business.

Jack sends Montoya and Katrina to a hotel while he buries their team and goes to meet up with some of their church contacts. They are employed by the Catholic church and Jack meets up with Cardinal Alba (Maximilian Schell), who has a wicked pair of eyes I must say, and Father Adam (Tim Guinee). There, Jack updates them on the situation and informs them that he is very certain that they have been betrayed and that someone from among the slayer's or church's contacts is somehow involved in the massacre of Jack's team. Adam is assigned to work with Jack to replace the previous priest who was on the team.

Adam is like a big fan of Jack for some reason and gives us a cute little car ride exposition dump on Jack's tragic past… His parents were bitten by vampires and he was raised by the church to be their ultimate hunter. Jack, in one of his perpetually bad moods, stops the car and assaults Adam, basically in an attempt to scare him into admitting he's the traitor if he is. Adam admits to no such thing because he's not, and for now Jack seems to soften to him a bit.

Obviously, Jack is a little upset that his entire team has been killed. As an audience, I don't really care. The team were just props and outside of Montoya we don't really see any interpersonal interactions between any of its members and Jack. Them dying is expected and not sad in the slightest. Jack is clearly motivated by getting revenge for this and uncovering the Judas Iscariot. Still, I don't really know if I can say Jack struggles with their deaths. I suppose that's cause this is the life he lives, but in talking to the Cardinal, Jack expresses how unusual this particular master vampire was. So, it can't be common for so many slayers to be killed like this, and ordinarily they probably have one another to lean on in the face of loss. I think I'm thinking too much about this subpar movie, but I feel like the movie should have thought about these things. Like if more attention was given into the emotional components here, I might have liked this movie more overall. That aside, the movie eventually leads into the third act in which everything is finally revealed! Yes, Jack was set up! And by who you wonder? Well spoiler alert, it was the Cardinal. Usually I'd give more of a warning but there is literally only one person who could be responsible. He's the only person of moderate significance to everyone else but whom the audience could care less about the motivations of. And on to that then. What are the motivations behind his betrayal? He state's it actually very perfectly. "I'm sorry to disillusion you, jack. as one grows old.. as death approaches, we begin to question our faith. And I have found mine lacking. Is there a god? is there heaven? I can no longer answer this for certain. I have witnessed no miracles, had no visions, and the prospect of death terrifies me! I realized I have only one alternative." Sort of on the nose I think. See Valek is trying to make it possible for vampires to walk among the daytime and doing so will make them more competitive with and deadly to humans. Jack is needed in this because for Valek to make this happen, he must presume a ritual akin to his own death where they sacrifice Jack on a burning cross.

Jack dying for our sins... In the meantime, Katrina takes a huge chunk out of Montoya's neck and leaves him for dead having basically all but fully succumb to the bite she received before. Montoya was bit by Katrina earlier in the movie as well but he keeps it hidden from everyone till the very end because, well, now that he's got a huge hole in his neck, ya can't really keep something like that secret. Adam is hiding in a nearby shop but overhearing the whole exchange outside. He and Montoya simultaneously manage to intervene in time to save Jack and get away. Since the ritual needed to take place as dawn rose, now all the vampires are vulnerable and have to retreat into the shelter of the buildings, including Valek. Jack follows him and they have a final confrontation in which Jack finally overpowers Valek. When everyone regroups Montoya announces he's leaving with Katrina because #love or something, and also they're both bitten and basically fucked. Jack allows him a two day head start but promises to hunt him down and kill him. Pretty bad as breakups go I must say... And then the movie ends with Father Adam and Jack talking about Adam having a hard on. This is the second time this happens in the movie. I didn't really know how to talk about it earlier but it happens right after the car scene with Adam. Jack asks if him beating up on him gave him a woody, and at the end of the movie Jack asks Adam if killing vampires gave him one, to which Adam says OH HELL YEAH BROTHER. So, development I suppose.

Overall the movie is worth watching if you like this style of film. I mean clearly I’ve gotten some pleasure out of seeing it, even though I do have my complaints about some occasionally weak performances and some missed opportunities.

Another thing of note is the music which I did enjoy and took notice of on several occasions because I enjoyed it. This is a John Carpenter flick, and in similar practice he has composed the music for it. I really love his scores and this movie is no exception even if it’s not my all time favorite. Still, quite enjoyable and very good for the movie’s tone.

So, not bad but not great either. Certainly a moderate amount of fun to be had.

#vampires #80s #80s movie #horror #john carpenter #james woods #Daniel Baldwin #Thomas Ian Griffith #Vampires 1988 #John Carpenter Vampires #Sheryl Lee #movie #vampire movie

[mrcowboysmovieroom]

Mackenna's Gold (1969)

Directed by: J. Lee Thompson Genre: Western, action

CW: None Originally written 07/04/2023

Mackenna's Gold caught my attention because of the synopsis and because it stars Omar Sharif. I've seen him in quite a few movies but never in a western. Well, I suppose there is Hidalgo but I don't really think that counts.

I really want to just talk about Omar's character all on his own, but I suppose that's really suited for later.

Mackenna's Gold stars Gregory Peck and Camilla Sparv as well. It also contained Telly Savalas and Ted Cassidy whom I recognized immediately as the man who played Ruk in Star Trek TOS episode "What Are Little Girls Made Of?". More notably and more significant however, was his role as Lurch in the original Addams Family tv show. Additionally there's Julie Newmar who played Catwoman in the Adam West Batman series. So, a pretty cool cast.

This western is a treasure chaser. The story goes that there is basically this hidden location sacred to the Apache which is basically just gold. I don't think anyone ever compared it to El Dorado, but the comparison probably goes without saying. The place is thought to be a myth up until recently before the film starts.

Marshall Mackenna (Gregory Peck) ends up being the only man to know it's location by happenstance. He happens to end up in a shootout with the chief carrying the only known map, seeing the map during a conversation ensuing, and then burning the map after the chief dies.

Mackenna has a gifted memory which we learn about through Colorado who reveals that Mackenna has a history of playing poker and won by memorizing the cards.

This marks one of many times we are informed of Mackenna and Colorado's shared history. They call one another old friend and whenever the story needs to reveal a bit of Mackenna's sordid backstory, Colorado is generally the one to divulge. I like this dynamic a lot, but I don't want to get distracted in talking about it a whole lot just yet.

Colorado is searching for the gold and has been following the Apache chief carrying the map for awhile now, and when he finds Mackenna and the chief dead, he surmises that Mackenna must be after the gold as well and is now their only lead to get to it, so he kidnaps Mackenna.

Before he met up with Mackenna he also kidnapped Inga Bergerman (Camilla Sparv) who's the daughter of the judge who made Mackenna Marshall. She's also the love interest. Don't really feel much of anything for her character if I'm being honest. But if I'm being even more honest, I really don't feel much for anyone but Colorado.

I don't think it's Sparv's fault. While I'm not super familiar with her career, this did come out in the 60s, and it's pretty commonplace to underutilize a femme character.

Colorado kidnaps her, but he has no idea of her import and value, or of the fact that even though she's the ex-judge's daughter she's actually worth basically nothing anyways and incidentally this gold could really help her.

And then, all of the sudden Eli Wallach shows up! I was really excited to see him, but this marks a very strange section of the film. With him is a really diverse group of various western archetypes. You expect this to mean something and go somewhere. There is such a weird amount of attention placed on various members of this group that you expect them to be around for a while, at least some of them. There's even dialogue and shots which seem to imply that later on there will be some modicum of payoff for a few of them.

One of them is supposedly the only known survivor to have been to the gold's location but he was taken there blindfolded and then blinded and left for dead. There's a pair of Englishmen who get a very strange amount of attention, and it's possibly implied one of them is actually a woman in disguise.

Eli Wallach and Omar Sharif combine their forces only for a short time before American troops catch up to them and  break them up. The only people to escape are Inga, Mackenna, Colorado, and two Apache played by Ted Cassidy and Julie Newmar (yeah, this is a movie with brownface).

It seems like some of the others may have escaped also but the movie never storybooks their ends so it’s a really confusingly useless section of the movie. It adds nothing to the plot, and at first you don’t realize that because it seems like any of these guys might have gotten away and would end up being trouble later on, but then the movie ends and you’re like oh. Okay. In fact, you may have even forgotten that that part of the movie happens at all! It was just *so* long ago.

So, to get to our final five it feels like we took a long walk to get basically right back to where we started. Omar had more than five people in his group, but these were the only really relevant ones anyway.

Whatever. The group now keeps making their way with soldiers still on their tail and the hot desert ahead. At some point Inga is released to join the soldiers because she’s been slowing them down as she’s weaker and unused to the climate. She meets up with Sergeant Tibbs (Telly Savalas) whom she tells everything to in the hopes that he’ll help Meckenna. Well, shock and awe as he kills his own men and kidnaps her so he can catch up to Meckenna and company to also hunt down the gold.

Kinda funny.

From here, it’s a bit of a blur. I’ve neglected to talk about some other scenes of character development because, if I’m being honest, I don’t care. I don’t really have much regard for these characters despite the cast behind them. There were some enjoyable components but it all mostly had to do with Omar Sharif.

Eventually they reach the location and so more characters have to die. Greed or whatever I guess. Basically, by the time we see gold all we have left is Colorado, Mackenna, and Inga. Unsurprisingly, Mackenna and Colorado fight. Mackenna overpowers Colorado by beating him against the rock walls. Funnily, Inga tries to help by throwing Mackenna her belt to use but then he misses grabbing it and it falls right off the cliffs.

While they’re having their climactic action other Apache who’ve been trying to keep this place guarded finally catch up to them and the rumble and size of the group inadvertently causes an avalanche to occur. So, now our three leads have to escape the area and the end of the movie sees this gold paradise lost in the rubble. Pretty much what you expect from movies like this. Greedy characters get punished and the object of their greed is lost to time and becomes mythical once more.

Uh, it’s okay. The major issues for me are that the film is full of wasted time. There were all those extraneous characters I mentioned before, but it feels like a lot of time could be abridged or make the remaining characters more interesting. I liked that all of them were more or less connected. Mackenna and Colorado have history, but so too does Mackenna to Hesh-Ke (Julie Newmar) who was once his lover. I liked when the movie referenced this history or used it for some of the conflict. For instance, Hesh-Ke tries to kill Inga in an attempt to be the only viable option for Mackenna.

And of course, I really liked Colorado. It’s Colorado time, baby! First, Omar Sharif makes a delightful ruffian. He has this boyish charm and a brilliant smile. Colorado dresses nice and wears these jangly spurs that are never not making noise. I love that detail to his character because it enforces this pattern of peacocking and virtue signaling he does. Colorado really wants you to take him seriously and he’s a man with dreams! There is an adorable scene where he shows Mackenna his reason for wanting the gold and pulls out pamphlets about well dressed men in Paris. He wants to live the life!

Suddenly it’s got me thinking about his wardrobe and how he’s probably never known the comfort and power of wealth like that and that's why this is so important to him. He has this endearing and bubbly personality that just sucks ya in. He’s magnetic and you wonder how anyone can’t grow to love him, and it makes me wonder how the movie can’t give him some sort of redemption proper or reward in the end. Yeah, he lives but under threat and without any gold. I’d give Colorado the gold. Listen I know he’s an outlaw but he’s so sincere and pleasant to be around. Can’t we cut him some slack?

I also just find him more interesting than Mackenna. My interest in Mackenna really only extended as far as his connection to Colorado went. Mackenna was such a stiff board in comparison. There’s a scene in the movie where they find a river and Colorado jumps in naked and then lounges outside and Mackenna and Inga, are for some reason, too good to do the same. They jump in a little later with their clothes still fully on and Colorado says he will never understand the gringo, and like uhhh yeah man, these two are real party-poopers.

So anyway, now that I’ve talked about how much I love Colorado I will conclude by saying the movie is okay. It’s not bad, it's just dull at times and wastes a good bit of time on things that don’t ever matter. It’s probably not so bad if you’re watching for a first time, but I can’t imagine some of the scenes will be bearable in subsequent watches when you know they lead nowhere and did nothing for the plot on large.

Final verdict; 5.6/10

#western #western movie #cowboy #cowboy movie #60s #60s movie #mackenna's gold #mackenna's gold 1969 #gregory peck #omar sharif #julie Newmar #Camilla Sparv #Ted Cassidy #Telly Savalas

[mrcowboysmovieroom]

Shocker (1989)

Directed by: Wes Craven Genre: Horror, comedy

CW: Gore?? Mostly blood in excess at times but I can't really say it's that bad. Originally written 11/25/2022

So when this was originally written I had been in the process of watching this movie for the third time in two days. This film had and still does affect me. I love quoting it and sending this reaction gif from it.

GIF by vhs-ninja

Is it any good? Yes.... but it's complicated. A poster like this doesn't quite scream quality does it? I think Shocker boasts a unique experience, though I don't think its good by traditional standards.

So, part of the appeal for me with this film is it's issues. Not quite in the "so bad its good way" either, though that phenomenon has a bit of a roll to play here. There is this bizarre charm to it's wrong or weird choices. It has a sort of sincerity to it which I don't know how to explain without just sitting you in front of the movie and having you watch it.

The movie is absurd and self aware enough about this fact that the bizarre choices end up being very likeable. At the same time, parts of the movie's plot seem haphazard and confusing in their lack of sense. Silliness pervades every aspect of this film.

The movie is an intense cat and mouse thriller, but it's bad guy has electricity powers and says one liners like "Come on boy. Let's take a ride in my Voltswagon!"

And I think it's this strange combination of high angst and on the nose puns that has gripped me so much. There is a certain delight in giggling away as the main character gets attacked by the bad guy who is now possessing a chair. Or a scene the bad guy is making a deal with the devil and the devil appears as a pair of giant lips and says, "You got it, baby".

Shocker fills a niche role where its possible for all these things to coincide. I mean where else will you have a big epic punching match through a series of tv channels?

So, I'm trying to be fair here but there is difficulty in rating this movie because I am very taken with this movie. It's not a great film, but it offers you a great time.

So our movie begins on the football field. Jonathan Parker is your average college football jock.. But is he!?!? Well yes, but he’s got a sordid past that he doesn’t remember (yet). Upon receiving a concussion at practice, he is imbued with psychic powers that activate when he sleeps.

His dreams show him the murders of Horace Pinker, a serial killer who has been killing local families. No one seems to be able to track him at all as he leaves virtually no trace, but Jonathan’s visions give him a pretty precise depiction and even lead him to active crime scenes. Though, confusingly (though frankly it does not matter) it seems as though Jonathan can interact with Pinker in the dreams as well.

Since Johnathan's father's a cop, Jonathan quickly convinces him that he can help the police catch this guy, and that is exactly what they manage to do, though not without a few officers getting brutally murdered along the way.

Well, now that we've caught him- it's time for the electric chair BABY LETS GOOOO and thus begins the meat and potatoes of this movie- the cat and mouse chase between Jonathan and the body hopping electricity wielding Horace.

During all this we get some hilarious moments including my favorite chair scene. Horace posses a handful of people, including a little ten year old. She commandeers a bulldozer to try and kill Jonathan.

The goofiness is peak here.

But as I said, the movie lacks in other areas. Explanations are very short coming. There is no explanation for why Jonathan receives these powers from a concussion- after all this is football we're talking about. Surely every man out there has had at least one before.

Why is only Jonathan's dead girlfriend able to communicate with Horace? I think it's because of the power of love but there is no in universe logic that explains it.

And what about these visions? It seems unclear how much ability Jonathan has to interact with those within it. At some points it seems like they should think him legitimately there, and other times it feels like they couldn't possibly.

I must say though, while there are a plethora of inconsistencies and plot-holes, I was largely unbothered by them. Some how this is one of those movies that tickles my fancy in just the right way so as to get me to not care. It's immaterial and after seeing this movie a total of four times, I've never been left wanting more than I've already been given.

I think I am compelled to give this movie a rating in the 6-7 range, but closer to a six. That being said, I sort of wish everyone and their mothers would see it. That chair scene is a cinematic masterpiece.

#horror #horror movie #shocker #shocker 1989 #mitch pileggi #80s #80s movie #80s horror