Movies that hold up vs. those that don't
- Thread starter Nokomis
- Start date
Donovan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,131
- Reaction score
- 1,729
- Points
- 113
Anybody else see the original Blade Runner in the theaters in 1982? I had just turned 16 and had my driver's license. I remember Harrison Ford appearing on Johnny Carson promoting this new film. It must have been in the summer, because I wouldn't have been up watching that during school. I was blown away by the trailer. The next night I drove to the theater myself and hoped I could get into the R rated show. I did. It was so amazing to me. I went back and saw it the following evening. The story was great and the graphics were completely ahead of its time.
Here's a good article on it:
www.hollywoodintoto.com
Here's a good article on it:
Why 'Blade Runner' Ruled the '80s
How important is context for a movie? Take 'Casablanca.' Context isn't critically important to the 1942 film. Oh, it might help if you understand the basics of WWII, Vichy France, the Nazis and where and what Czechoslovakia was. The same applies to Casablanca, Morocco. It's still not critical...
www.hollywoodintoto.com
tikited
Me
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 18,354
- Reaction score
- 5,673
- Points
- 113
I was a little younger, but the story is the same. My buddies and I snuck into Apache Theater (the back door was opened by an older brother) to see it. We were already Ridley Scott fans (Alien), and I read a few pages of the novel Blade Runner was based on.Anybody else see the original Blade Runner in the theaters in 1982? I had just turned 16 and had my driver's license. I remember Harrison Ford appearing on Johnny Carson promoting this new film. It must have been in the summer, because I wouldn't have been up watching that during school. I was blown away by the trailer. The next night I drove to the theater myself and hoped I could get into the R rated show. I did. It was so amazing to me. I went back and saw it the following evening. The story was great and the graphics were completely ahead of its time.
Here's a good article on it:
Why 'Blade Runner' Ruled the '80s
How important is context for a movie? Take 'Casablanca.' Context isn't critically important to the 1942 film. Oh, it might help if you understand the basics of WWII, Vichy France, the Nazis and where and what Czechoslovakia was. The same applies to Casablanca, Morocco. It's still not critical...
Blade Runner absolutely blew my mind. I've seen every alternate version and loved the 2049 film as well.
Donovan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,131
- Reaction score
- 1,729
- Points
- 113
Yes, I've seen all the versions as well. I actually have a soft spot for the original theatrical version that had the narration in spots by Harrison Ford.
Apache Mall brings back memories. I loved the fact it had a bowling alley in the basement.
short ornery norwegian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 21,871
- Reaction score
- 15,859
- Points
- 113
yeah. the version with the voice-over gets criticized because (supposedly) it was not Scott's preference. but that is the version I saw first, and I was fine with it. the voice-over emphasized the neo-noir vibe of the movie - putting Deckard as a futuristic Philip Marlowe.
I know I saw the movie in '82 - was living in the Twin Cities at the time - but can't remember where I saw it.
Happened to rewatch blade runner right before this discussion started. It's a great example of a movie whose reputation actually grew over time. It certainly didn't bomb on release but both critical and commercial success took a while to grow.
Last edited:
coolhandgopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 2,090
- Points
- 113
Funny enough, Blade Runner was a movie I'd never watched and it was one of the offerings on the flight home so I seized the opportunity to watch it based on the conversation here. It was the version with Ford's narration, which I appreciated, given the noise of the airplane and did enjoy it a lot, even if it wasn't the ideal setting to watch. Lots to like about the entire movie, but Daryl Hannah stole the show for me, along with the visual effects. And Sean Young--whew, probably best that 10 year old me didn't know about this movie when it was released ;-).
short ornery norwegian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 21,871
- Reaction score
- 15,859
- Points
- 113
just watched the 1932 original version of "Scarface." for some reason, I had never seen it before.
it's interesting to see this in comparison to the Al Pacino version from 1983.
the '32 version follows the same basic story line - rise and fall of an organized crime boss - only the '32 version is about bootlegging while the '83 version is about drugs. it's only 95 minutes long, so - like most movies of that era - the plot moves along more quickly.
what jumped out to me was how the '83 version follows the original. a lot of the same plot points and story beats - but the Pacino version turns everything up to 11.
I know that old movies are not everyone's thing - but this is worth watching, especially if you've seen the Pacino version.
it's interesting to see this in comparison to the Al Pacino version from 1983.
the '32 version follows the same basic story line - rise and fall of an organized crime boss - only the '32 version is about bootlegging while the '83 version is about drugs. it's only 95 minutes long, so - like most movies of that era - the plot moves along more quickly.
what jumped out to me was how the '83 version follows the original. a lot of the same plot points and story beats - but the Pacino version turns everything up to 11.
I know that old movies are not everyone's thing - but this is worth watching, especially if you've seen the Pacino version.
coolhandgopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 2,090
- Points
- 113
I came across 1980's The Dogs of Wars on one of my streaming services the other day and saw that it was rolling off the service at the end of the month, so I gave it a watch-the descriptor said it was a mercenary movie based on a Frederic Forsyth novel (who also wrote The Day of the Jackal), starring Christopher Walken and Tom Berenger, so I thought it would be an entertaining, pulpy 100 minutes of action.
It surprised me though, and mostly in a good way. It's reviews are pretty spotty on IMDB, but I think that's largely for two reasons:
* fans of the book were pretty critical of the translation to on-screen
* the action in the movie is limited to the opening and closing sequences, so it's not a non-stop action machine
A lot of the movie was spent on setting up the coup of a small African country coming out of colonianism--working out the money, obtaining the firearms, doing the detail work. For a mercenary movie, I found these attentions pretty compelling, particularly the cat-and-mouse game being played by the financier of the coup. Other thoughts:
* I don't recall ever watching Walken in the lead role of a movie before--memorable bits in Annie Hall, Pulp Fiction, the co-starring role in The Deer Hunter, "more cowbell!" were my touchpoints with him. He was really good in the lead-intensity that held your attention and made you wonder if things would explode at any moment with him.
* This was Ed O'Neill's third ever credited on-screen role, a bit piece as a mercenary who chooses not to join Walken's coup d'etat attempt. One of those actors who pretty much has looked the same from the beginning of his career onward.
* In a sneaky way, Tom Berenger had himself a hell of a decade in the '80s. The decade opened with this movie and then he went onward to prominent roles in The Big Chill, Eddie & the Cruisers, Major League (Jake Taylor puts down a bunt!) and one of the most terrifying roles I've seen on the big screen, Sergeant Barnes in Platoon, for which he received a best supporting actor nomination. '89 was Major League and after that, his IMDB page is full of forgettable films, TV movies, and guest spots on TV shows--but hey, he's still doing work at age 75 and a "Tom Berenger's '80 movies" could wildly entertain on a snowed-in Saturday afternoon/evening.
* Back to this movie--the ending, while fairly predictable, was very satisfying. I'd recommend it, unless you've read the novel (evidently).
It surprised me though, and mostly in a good way. It's reviews are pretty spotty on IMDB, but I think that's largely for two reasons:
* fans of the book were pretty critical of the translation to on-screen
* the action in the movie is limited to the opening and closing sequences, so it's not a non-stop action machine
A lot of the movie was spent on setting up the coup of a small African country coming out of colonianism--working out the money, obtaining the firearms, doing the detail work. For a mercenary movie, I found these attentions pretty compelling, particularly the cat-and-mouse game being played by the financier of the coup. Other thoughts:
* I don't recall ever watching Walken in the lead role of a movie before--memorable bits in Annie Hall, Pulp Fiction, the co-starring role in The Deer Hunter, "more cowbell!" were my touchpoints with him. He was really good in the lead-intensity that held your attention and made you wonder if things would explode at any moment with him.
* This was Ed O'Neill's third ever credited on-screen role, a bit piece as a mercenary who chooses not to join Walken's coup d'etat attempt. One of those actors who pretty much has looked the same from the beginning of his career onward.
* In a sneaky way, Tom Berenger had himself a hell of a decade in the '80s. The decade opened with this movie and then he went onward to prominent roles in The Big Chill, Eddie & the Cruisers, Major League (Jake Taylor puts down a bunt!) and one of the most terrifying roles I've seen on the big screen, Sergeant Barnes in Platoon, for which he received a best supporting actor nomination. '89 was Major League and after that, his IMDB page is full of forgettable films, TV movies, and guest spots on TV shows--but hey, he's still doing work at age 75 and a "Tom Berenger's '80 movies" could wildly entertain on a snowed-in Saturday afternoon/evening.
* Back to this movie--the ending, while fairly predictable, was very satisfying. I'd recommend it, unless you've read the novel (evidently).
WoodburyTim
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2016
- Messages
- 2,544
- Reaction score
- 1,910
- Points
- 113
Oh man, the Apache mall. The Orange Julius still stands out to me for some reason. Man did I rock the Machine Shed back in the day. I saw the first girl there that blew my mind as I glanced up from a Double Dragon marathon session.