80's Thriller Throwback: No Mans Land

1987
Directed by: Peter Werner
Category: Thriller

Here's another one of those films I'd seen countless times in the video store, yet never really appealed to me for one reason or another. But as I dig into 80's stuff, this film, and the cover in particular, really drew me in. Finding it on VHS wasn't as cheap as I expected though. While it has indeed gotten a DVD release, it's not in widescreen, so I figured why bother with that format and go with the one I really enjoy. I found it difficult to track down for under $10. If I'm going to pay that much for a tape, I'd want it to be in great condition, which most were unfortunately not. 

The Good:

It's like an 80's time capsule. The clothes, the stores, the cars, the buildings, it's pretty slick in a Miami Vice sort of way and gives the film a little kick of amusement that had it been missing, would have made the film pretty forgettable. I've heard a lot of people refer to this as the first Fast and the Furious film because it's kinda sorta the same kind of story, only with Porsche's, and more specifically, Porsche's of the 80's. While the film itself isn't really all that engaging, playing out like a typical undercover detective story, just the fact that it's 1987 offers up some real nice visual eye candy. Television director Peter Werner does a decent job capturing it all with a steady even hand. Nothing flashy, but it's not lazy either, which was a relief. He does a pretty straightforward job, which is actually a pretty good fit for the material.

Courtesy of VHSCollector.com

Solid casting. In terms of story, a rookie cop (D.B. Sweeney) goes undercover to infiltrate a stolen car ring, befriending the head of that ring (Charlie Sheen), and getting sucked deep into the lifestyle, forming a tight bond with his target, but complicating matters by falling in love with his target's sister. It's pretty standard stuff, and though there are some great performances by a surprisingly solid cast that also includes Randy Quaid (playing an asshole cop, similar to his character in The Wraith, also with Sheen), Bill Duke and M. Emmett Walsh.

Sheen is the standout though. He's the guy that Sweeney's character is supposed to be investigating, yet falls for his charm and charisma, making it difficult to believe he's responsible for murder, like his boss keeps telling him. Charlie Sheen was having an incredibly busy year, starring in a total of 4 films  - Wisdom, Three for the Road, No Mans Land, and Wall Street. And this is of course coming off of his star making turn in Oliver Stone's Platoon just the year before. Seeing him in films like this reminds me of that special something he once had. It's easy to see why and how he became such a big star.


The Bad:

Don't expect a lot of car chases. For a film that so many others refer to as the first Fast and the Furious film, I was surprised to find only 1 single car chase in here. Sure there's a lot of driving and lots of flashy Porsche's, but sadly the film can only boast a single car chase to it's credit.

Less talking, more car chases. While the film was made and structured well, rounded out by a solid cast, it still doesn't really engage you very well. In fact, I couldn't help but shake that this easily could have been used for an episode of Miami Vice or a similar show.

All in all, a decent crime drama/thriller, offering little in the way of actual thrills, instead deciding to focus more as character study than a film full of car chases, crashes and stunts.

Blu-Ray Review: 2010: The Year We Make Contact

As much as I worship and love Stanley Kubricks original 2001, I don't know why it took me so long to get around to this one. What makes it even more bizarre (if you know me), is that I have an obsession with director Peter Hyams. He's hands-down one of my all-time favorite directors. He's incredibly talented and severely underrated as a genre director. He's given us some really, really great films, yet nobody ever bothers to remember who made them or what his name is. And really, that's a damn shame. But moving on.

The Film:

Not knowing exactly what to expect, I went in hopeful, knowing that Hyams has never really let me down before, though End of Days was pretty forgettable. But 2010 was made around the time where he was really on a creative high, knocking out solid work left and right. It also helps that slow science fiction is a personal favorite little sub-genre of mine.

2010 is a technical marvel. While the original film was groundbreaking for it's time, and still an incredible technical achievement today, 2010, while not breaking new ground with effects, does do a near flawless job in that department. The model work, matte painting, and practical effects are all integrated seamlessly into the live action shots, for a truly stunning piece of science fiction filmmaking. There were only really maybe a time or two where you can really notice that there was a blue screen involved for a particular shot. Considering this film was made in 1984, that's an achievement all on it's own. In terms of the film itself, it's incredible. Hyams story pulls you into the events that happened in the first film in a way that even if you haven't seen 2001, you will still be able to follow what's going on. Even when dealing with the events of the first film, writer/director Peter Hyams fleshes out those elements in a way that makes sense, which is really refreshing when you take into consideration that most people were endlessly confused or lost throughout most of Stanley Kubrick's original masterpiece.

The cast is nothing short of phenomenal. Roy Scheider is such a treasure and highly underrated as an actor. It's a shame he doesn't get the recognition he deserves. Rounding out this stellar cast is John Lithgow, Helen Mirren, Bob Balaban, Douglas Rain returning as the voice of HAL, and a few other notable recognizable faces.

The film does such a great job in trying to realistically explain HAL's behavior and actions in the first film, in effect allowing the story to move forward since HAL again is a big part of this new mission. It's plausible. But that doesn't keep the intensity from rearing it's ugly head, again. Hyams has a talent for building the tension up to a fever pitch, especially in the climax, that while he doesn't use the same technique's that Kubrick did, he does it in his own particular way that works just as effectively. I would definitely call this a sci-fi/thriller rather than a sci-fi/drama.

2010 is a worthy followup to a remarkable film. In it's own way, I found 2010 to be just as good. You can't judge any film by the standards that 2001: A Space Odyssey set, so in that regard, while some may agree and some may not, I think 2010: The Year We Make Contact is just as good as that film. You can't go in expecting the same kind of magic, because that's just not realistic. But Hyams being the amazing filmmaker he is, is able to make easily one of the best science fiction thrillers ever made, on a technical and cinematic level. It's a brilliant, beautiful, and highly enjoyable film that should get the same kind of respect that 2001 received.

The Blu Ray:

Before I purchased this Blu Ray, I did some digging into past reviews and comments on sites such as Amazon and was surprised to see that while many people hailed the film as a certified classic, a majority of them didn't think the Blu Ray was anything to get excited about. After purchasing it myself, I couldn't disagree more. While there are not many Special Features other than a short vintage featurette titled "2010: The Odyssey Continues" - while short, is a fascinating and informative look behind the scenes and the creative process - and a trailer, the transfer of the film itself is stunning. If you take into consideration that this was shot on film, some very slight graininess is expected. For me, this was only ever present and noticeable in the scenes inside the ship when the crew would be in the cockpit. But all of the space stuff and effects work were free of any of this. The darks were rich and black, and the colors were vivid. One of the things I was concerned with would be the composite shots in space utilizing the model work and other backdrops, matte paints and such to create a realistic sequence in space. Except for one minor scene where you can see the surrounding black that was overlaid onto an existing shot, it was flawless for the entirety of the film. So my fears were put to rest. The effects work, made even clearer in HD, were a gorgeous thing of wonder. I was simply in awe and enthralled at these amazing images. All the money that big studio's fork out for 100% CGI still, today, doesn't come close to the epic realism of model work, matte paintings and composite shots. I don't know when they'll get it in their heads that CGI is not always the best way to go. It may be easier, but it doesn't look better. If anything, 2010 is a testament to that; a film that was made in 1984.

Verdict:

It's an absolute must buy. You can find it very cheap, usually under $10 with shipping included on eBay and Amazon. I don't know why I waited to so long to pick this up. Though short on Special Features, the transfer is just simply amazing and the film has never looked better. It's a remarkably vast improvement over the previous DVD release.

Bond is Back!: The Living Daylights

1987
Directed by: John Glen
Category: Action/Thriller

Having just finished A View To A Kill (1985), instead of going backwards, I decided to move forward with the 007 films of the 80's. So next in line was this one, where it was time for another shift in the James Bond universe. The Living Daylights was released 2 years after the previous installment, which saw Roger Moore retiring the character, with Timothy Dalton taking over the role for the first time with this film.

I don't know, I kind of feel like Dalton has gotten a bad rap for his turn as James Bond. In any conversation I've ever had with someone in talking about James Bond films, or even in reviews, articles and news, he's rarely ever brought up as one of the best or favorite Bond's. So with that, I went in with some trepidation. I was also aware that director John Glen was returning, and since I wasn't impressed at all with his work on A View To A Kill, I was a bit worried going in.

I'm happy to report that with Dalton on board, The Living Daylights not only exceeded my expectations, but it was flat out awesome. While it took a good 30 minutes to really pull me into the story, which always seems to be the case with most 007 films for me, it was a radically fleshed out and excellent espionage thriller. When you take into consideration that the previous Bond film was quite silly and very cheesy, this film takes a drastic 180 degree turn into serious, hard-edged thriller territory, which to my surprise, was a very welcome change indeed. There are no winks at the camera, and gone are the silliness to everything, replaced by a strict take on the character, one who isn't trying to bed every female, and one who doesn't reply with sarcasm, or even smiles. Which, truthfully, was quite refreshing. Sure that type of character worked well for Roger Moore, but it had grown tiresome by this point, and the franchise was ready for a change. And that change would come by way of Timothy Dalton. Who, as I would learn, had been approached multiple times to play Bond previously, but turned them down because he didn't think he was the right age at the time.

I think one of the biggest surprises for me out of all of this was director John Glen. Like I mentioned earlier, and also in my review for A View To A Kill, I just didn't like what he was doing aesthetically. It all came off as very tame and completely uninteresting. So when I learned he was returning again for this Bond film, I was reluctant to dive in wholeheartedly. But a funny thing happened. The guy surprised me in a very big way, and completely redeemed himself in my eyes. It seems the detour into more serious fare was a good match for him because he completely revitalizes the look he gave his previous Bond films with a much more polished and refined approach. It doesn't really add more style per say, but it does look cleaner and neater overall, which adds a lot to the legitimacy of the new direction they're intending to take the franchise. On a visual level, it adds so much more to the experience overall. John Glen won me over this time around and it's because of this that I am looking forward to, more than ever, License To Kill, his last directing job on a Bond film.

Timothy Dalton just owns the role. Though I never put much stock into Dalton in the role since I knew he only played him twice (the 2nd least amount of all the actors who have taken the role), and he's rarely ever mentioned as a favorite, I was kinda taken aback at how great he was as 007. While nostalgia will prevail and force me to pick Roger Moore as my favorite, after having seen this film, I'm more inclined to lean more towards Dalton because he's such a badass. I'm sure License to Kill will be the deciding factor for me once I see it.

Another highlight in the acting department was Maryam d'Abo as the love interest. She was so different than any I'd seen before. Instead of playing a tough secret agent, or a sexy killer, she played a cellist who is unwittingly used as a patsy in a murder plot, who is helped by 007 to catch her former boyfriend. It's all in the way she plays her, with so much charm and sensitive emotion. She was just perfect in the role and made a much more interesting and convincing love interest than we're used to seeing.

One of the things that made this so great for me was the fact that I've already been on somewhat of an 80's Thriller kick lately, if you haven't already noticed. This is a genre and an era I never really took the time to admire before, and as I make up for it now, I'm realizing I have really been missing out on some great films. What's even more surprising to me is that I was not expecting this film to fall into that category at all. Where I was expecting a big, loud and cheesy film, I was instead treated to a dark, violent, and serious James Bond film that grabbed me from the get-go and consistently left me impressed.

Great cast, great story, and great action sequences, all wrapped into a neatly packaged espionage thriller, making it the best Bond film I've seen so far.

Fox's The Exorcist Needs Your Help

So here we are again, another great show barely past it's first season and already in fear of being canceled due to lack of viewership. Much like the excellent and highly underrated Hannibal, Fox's Exorcist show seems to have flown under the radar of most mainstream television viewers. Maybe it's because they're not generally a fan of the films, or maybe they're too scared that it might actually be too scary for them. Whatever the case may be, Unless people actually watch it, it's highly unlikely Fox will greenlight a season 2, which would just be a huge travesty. 

I have to admit, I myself wasn't really too keen on the idea when I initially heard about it. I just kept wondering how they could expand on that storyline, or would they try to just totally redo the same story all over again? I didn't know, but since I rarely ever watch TV to begin with (We pretty much stick to streaming from Hulu, Amazon and Netflix for our TV shows), I didn't know what to expect - I was slightly skeptical. I also didn't hear too much in promotion for this show, but like I said, that's all on me since I don't watch TV. But one evening as I was browsing Hulu Plus for a new show to watch, I noticed they had a few episodes of The Exorcist already available to stream as we were towards the beginning of the season and Hulu was making them available the following day as each episode aired. So really, on a whim and also out of curiosity, we threw on the first episode. 

While I can't truthfully say we were 100% hooked after that premiere episode, it was good enough to keep us invested and see if it picked up some steam. So we trudged on and I'm so glad we did because with each new episode, the show became stronger, better, and more intense. While I will admit it took a good 2 or 3 episodes for it to really find it's footing, the payoff was worth the wait. Big time. 

As I mentioned earlier, each episode only grew stronger and more riveting, grabbing us to the point that we just couldn't wait for the next episode to air so we could stream it the following day. We were hooked in a very big way, the same way were were for Hannibal. This series has all the trappings of a great show, full of surprises, twists and turns, intensity, great performances, and a new take on the material I was not expecting. 

I don't want to spoil it for you by giving too much away, but let me just say that The Exorcist did not play out the way I was expecting it to, and that's a good thing. The Exorcist defied my expectations for the better, and when it was all said and done, it blew me away. Having just finished the last episode, which was awesome and a fitting finale to a great show, it left us sad because it was over and we just wanted more. I am hopeful though, as it ended with some open subplots and loose ends, I'm assuming in the hopes that the series gets renewed. 

One of the big surprises for me, next to the story and revelations, was it's excellent cast. Of course we all know who Geena Davis is, and I for one was surprised to see her in this. Only because I haven't seen her in anything for what seems like ages. Apparently she has been working steadily since the last time I'd seen her, but it was all for shows and films I don't care for personally like Grey's Anatomy. The other welcome surprise was Alan Ruck, playing the husband of Geena Davis' character. While I have seen him pop up from time to time in TV and film, most notably for me as a passenger on the bus in Speed, he will always and forever be known as Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. The two standouts however are Ben Daniels as Father Marcus, and Alfonso Herrera as Father Tomas Ortega. They are the driving force of the series, and if it were not for their strong performances as flawed, yet deeply dedicated priests, I doubt the show would have been as good. 

I urge you to please watch this show. It's better than you expect going in, and if you stay with it, you will be rewarded with one of the most intense, and best written shows on network television. It's currently available on Hulu Plus in it's entirety, but I don't know for how long. We need to help spread the word and get the network to see just how deserving this show is of a second season. 

80's Attack!: Solarbabies Film Review

1986
Directed by: Alan Johnson
Category: Action

Here's a fun fact. The two brothers from The Lost Boys, Corey Haim and Jason Patric, both starred in Rollerskating movies within a 5 year span of one another. Patric did it first in 1986 with this film, a year before he broke out with The Lost Boys in '87, and then Haim gave it a stab 5 years later in 1990 with Prayer of the Rollerboys. Neither were hits, but have since lived in cult film status since their respective releases. Moving on...

I'd always been mildly curious about this one. Shockingly, I'd never seen it until now, which is kind of odd since you'd think I'd be all over this kind of thing. Recently though, it popped back onto my radar in the middle of my VHS kick, so I was lucky to grab the MGM Big Box recently fairly cheap, though it has received a legit DVD release in widescreen, but I'm all about the VCR tapes right now.

The good: 
The cast. There are some pretty cool things to admire about this oddball of a film. For starters, the cast is pretty impressive. Outside of Jason Patric and Jamie Gertz, there's a healthy dose of familiar faces that you'll surely recognize from something like an unrecognizable Bruce Payne, Adrian Pasdar, Lucas Haas, James Le Gros, Sarah Douglas, and Charles Durning (?). So right off the bat, the cast is pretty all over the place in a good way.

The future and rollerskating. The film delivers an interesting post apocalyptic future that mixes elements of a lot of other films, but does it really well. Oh, and they add rollerskating, which apparently is a huge deal in the future. I really think what makes it work is how well director Alan Johnson films it all. It actually has a slickness to it that you wouldn't normally find in a post apocalyptic film. His camera setups are impressive and the action sequences deliver. What's weird is that he never directed a film after this, and the only other directing credit to his name was the Mel Brooks comedy To Be or Not To Be from 3 years earlier.

Everything but the kitchen sink. Seriously, this film is ridiculously all over the place. Instead of sticking to one specific theme or idea, they literally pull everything out of their bag of tricks to keep things moving along and it's a little refreshing, kinda hilarious, and honestly, pretty ballsy. It can be pretty silly, yes, but it's absurdity does make it fun and if anything, interesting. We kind of found it enjoyable in an oddball way. We just went with it and enjoyed the ride.

The Bad:
As fun and ridiculous it was at times, it just never felt like it reached it's full potential. It looked great and all, and the cast was a hoot to watch all these years later, but as a whole, it lacked that extra punch to really sway it in any particular direction definitively. Like, it's not bad enough to call it a Bad Movie Night movie, and it doesn't have enough of the right ingredients to call it awesome. It's stuck somewhere right in the middle where you like it for what it is, but you don't love it for one reason or another.

90's Action Attack!: Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man Film Review

1991
Directed by: Simon Wincer
Category: Action

Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man is an action film that came out in 1991 and starring Mickey Rourke and Don Johnson. I remember this one, but never really had the itch to actually see it. Mainly because the director, Simon Wincer, was someone I just didn't care for very much. He reminds me of another one of those everyman directors like John Badham, John Glen, Roger Donaldson and Roger Spottiswoode. The kind that can get the job done, but don't really add any kind of visual substance or style. I'm a very visual person. I'm also a visual learner. I really have to enjoy a film on a visual level to really get into it. If it looks lazy, I lose interest pretty easily.

Recently though, a friend of mine was surprised that I hadn't seen it yet, and told me that I absolutely needed to. I was intrigued. And hey, what a team up of Johnson and Rourke. Maybe there was something to this that I was missing. So on a Saturday night, I made this my Saturday Night Movie.

While HDatMM didn't blow me away or anything, it's still a very satisfying and fun early 90's action flick. It delivers the goods, the action, the laughs, and the fun in spades and won't let you down if this is the kind of thing you're looking for. As I feared, director Simon Wincer didn't really wow me with the look of the film, but it has several other strengths that make up for it. Number one being the cast. Johnson and Rourke are just fantastic in their roles and play off each other really, really well. So much in fact that I kind of wish they had made more of these. But it also boasts a rather impressive who's who in this large ensemble cast like Chelsea Fields, Giancarlo Esposito, Robert Ginty, Tia Carrere, Vanessa Williams, Daniel Baldwin, Tom Sizemore, and the list just goes on and on. It's kind of ridiculous how many familiar faces are in here, but all in a fun way.

One thing that took me by surprise was how bizarre this film was. It's hard to even explain just how, but it's kind of weird.......in a good way. Like you have to take anything that happens with a grain of salt, because much of it is absurd and unbelievable, with zero sense of logic. But that's the beauty of these types of films. They're not trying to be anything other than mindless fun, and that's exactly what they've set out to do and pulled off splendidly. Sure you'll probably why there's a gang of killers walking around in black leather trenchcoats zipped up to their chins without arousing any kind of suspicion, even considering it looks to be 110 degrees outside. Or the fact that there's never "ever" a cop around in all the endless gun battles, explosions, and car chases. But I think that's part of this films charm - the ridiculousness and unbelievability aspect, which this film proudly wears on it's sleeve. You just kind of have to check your brain at the door and just go along for the ride.

Mickey Rourke had just come off a string of strong, solid films like Johnny Handsome, Desperate Hours and Wild Orchid. For me though, it's the first time I sensed a change in his face. There's something.....different, mainly his teeth, which are obviously new and too perfect and white. And aside from his physical appearance, he comes across strangely subdued in this one, like he's not really even trying. I don't know, it could very well be the direction he was given, or the way the character was written, but I oftentimes found it hard to make out what he even said because he either mumbled or whispered his lines so frequently that I eventually had to switch over to subtitles. Yet, it's also a physically demanding role and when the shit hits the fan, he get's the job done.

Don Johnson was a revelation. Having just finished his Miami Vice series the year before, and still not really making it big on the big screen with films like Dead Bang (1989) or The Hot Spot (1990), seeing him play a rough and dirty cowboy was such a blast. He pulls it off flawlessly and yet, he comes off as the most charming and charismatic character in the entire film, which is a true testament to his abilities.

As fun and action packed and weird as this film was, I can't help but feel it could have been a much better, bigger, and louder film with someone else behind the camera, someone else with more experience and more of a visual punch than Australian director Simon Wincer. If you've never heard of the guy, there's a good reason. He's responsible for a handful of popular films, but not because he directed them. For example, he's directed The Phantom, Free Willy, Quigley Down Under, and even D.A.R.Y.L., yet you'd never say something like "Oohh Simon Wincer directed that!" the you would with someone like say Tony Scott, John McTiernan, Renny Harlin, or Craig R. Baxely. He doesn't put that kind of stamp on his films, and that's a shame, because of all the films in his filmography, this one really could have benefited from one. With that being said, HDatMM still kicks a lot of ass and ultimately ends up being a helluva lot of fun. You'll definitely have a good time with this one.

James Bond Crashes and Burns; A View To A Kill Film Review

1985
Directed by: John Glen
Category: Action/Thriller

I should begin by saying I've never really been a Bond fan. Maybe just a casual fan if anything. And to be honest, if I ever make the effort to go see a new Bond film, it's usually because I'm more excited about who's directing it rather than the film itself. Skyfall would be a great example of that. That's the only Bond film I can recall actually going to see at the theater and that was only because Sam Mendes was directing and I was really excited to see what he did with it. But yea, even growing up as a film obsessed kid in the 80's and 90's, I never made any effort to see them. They just never appealed to me. But recently I started to wonder if I had been missing out on some great, or fun, films. I mean, there's got to be something to them, otherwise they wouldn't have made so many. Since Hulu Plus began carrying all of them (I think), I took this as a chance to finally start my immersion in the James Bond 007 films.

I decided to start off with this one because it appealed to me the most for a number of reasons. First, it's from 1985, with a title song by Duran Duran, and with a cast that includes Christopher Walken, Tanya Roberts, Grace Jones, and Roger Moore in his final Bond film. So I mean shit, just with all this talent right here there has to be a good film in here somewhere. Sadly, there isn't.

While I guess I did go in with some high expectations (who wouldn't with a lineup like that?!), A View To A Kill is a surprisingly dull, slow, and boring affair. Hey, I was just as surprised as you. Knowing that this was Moore's final time playing Bond, I had hoped they would have sent him off on a high note. But we're instead treated to a sometimes cheesy, silly, and oftentimes tedious story about a megalomaniac (Walken) who has a plan to destroy Silicone Valley. The main problem is that for a 007 film, there's just so much talking, and not enough action, espionage, or even thrills. And while you would think the year (1985) would offer some prime 80's cheese, it didn't. Director John Glen, who by now had directed the 2 previous Bond films For Your Eyes Only (1981) and Octopussy (1983), just kind of seems to be going through the motions with this one. While the film both started and ended with a rather impressive action sequence, the majority of the films looooong running time is excruciatingly uneventful. The only thing that really kind of let's the time pass by just a bit easier is seeing the above mentioned trio doing their thing and chewing up the scenery. Walken is always a blast as a villain, and Grace Jones was fun to watch playing his bodyguard/love interest who can literally lift men above her head. That was pretty cool. But I think the most enjoyable was the silly and highly absurd relationship between Bond and Tanya Roberts character. I mean, it was ridiculous. She continuously rejects his advances, and doesn't really know if he is who he says he is, yet walks, sleeps, and struts in the skimpiest of outfits. I'm not complaining, but in the context of the story, it was dumb.
fact of the matter is that

There were other things too, like a horribly choreographed and executed fight scene inside a house, and some bad green screen work that really just kind of put a damper on the whole experience.

I could go on, but I'm just not up to it. Rather than letting Roger Moore go out with a bang, it's much more like a whimper, which is such a shame because to me, he was the best Bond. His take on the character was so different from anybody else, and maybe it was nostalgia because he was the Bond when I was growing up, but I think it's more than that for me. He exudes a cheesy charm, and his constant wink at the camera attitude was so refreshing. This film could really have been something special. It has all the right ingredients. They're all right here. It just wasn't cooked together very well at all.

80's Thriller Throwback: Blue Thunder

1983
Directed by: John Badham
Category: Thriller

Here's another 80's thriller that I never got around to for some reason. When I recently discovered that Dan O'Bannon was responsible for the script, I jumped at the chance to finally give it a shot when I saw the blu ray cheap at my local Target. Plus, it stars Roy Scheider, who I just love to death in anything, especially his 80's output. What really sealed the deal for me though was also learning that Malcolm McDowell plays the villain. Sold!

The good:
The cast. Really, you can never go wrong with Roy Scheider in a starring role. For as many films as he's headlined in his long career, I'm still shocked that he isn't regarded more highly, or considered one of the best. It's almost criminal if you ask me. Tagging along with Scheider for the majority of the film is his partner, played by a super young Daniel Stern, who looks like he just graduated high school. Who knows? Maybe he had? And to round out the primary players, the one that really surprised me, Malcolm McDowell. I had no idea he was in this, but after learning he was and that he was the villain, well you can imagine my excitement. Blue Thunder just became a helluva lot more interesting.

The structure. I'll be honest and say that for the first half hour, nothing seemed to really "grab" me. In fact, I was almost ready to give up on it. Everything just kind of seemed a little too "ho hum" for my taste. But, I kept reminding myself of the pretty great names attached to this in front of and behind the camera, and so I stuck it out, and boy am I glad I did. Let me just say that Blue Thunder did not turn out the way I had expected it to, and for the better. I kind of half expected a pretty straight-forward story about a copter pilot fighting crime and whatnot, only to be thoroughly impressed by the film taking a "man on the run and needing to clear his name" approach. So what I thought would be a paint-by-numbers actioner instead turned out to be a cat-and-mouse thriller that had me on the edge of my seat for the entirety of the films second and third acts.

Stuntwork done right. One of the best thing about films made in the 80's was that they had to do a lot of the stunts and effects work legitimately, without the use of CGI or green screens. Sure green screens were available then, but they hadn't yet reached the realistic level that would be required for a lot of the helicopter scenes. So instead most of the flying work you see is actually being done, complete with the actual actors in the cockpit, which is really kinda nuts when you see the film. I'm actually surprised they got away with a lot of what they did. And then there were a lot of scenes where models were used, which was also breathtakingly awesome. I wish films would go back to this method. Seriously. The model work was so incredible that the only reason I know they were models was simply that the sequences were just too epic in execution and there was just no way they were able to get a helicopter to do those things back in 1983. That right there is a testament to some great practical effects work. If you want to see a good example of how not to do the effects, watch the slightly similar Firefox, directed, produced and starring Clint Eastwood a year earlier.

The tension. As I stated before, the film played out much differently than I had anticipated, and in doing so, really kind of blindsided me. Instead of a cheesy action film about a revolutionary helicopter fighting crime in the city, we're treated to an expertly structured thriller about a man who uncovers an assassination plot, resulting in a target on his head, and will stop at nothing to clear his name and bring those down to stop the plot from unfolding. Blue Thunder easily could have fallen prey to the same issues that turned Clint Eastwood's Firefox (1982) into a complete bore. I appreciate his attention to detail, but my god that film was long, and dull, and while it was a thriller as well, there were very little thrills to be had. Thankfully writing partners Dan O'Bannon (Alien, Lifeforce, Total Recall, Return of the Living Dead) and Don Jakoby (Lifeforce, Death Wish 3) do a knockout job keeping the audience on their toes and on the edge of their seat.

The bad:
Directed by John Badham. Really, this is nitpicking, I know. But I have never liked John Badham much as a director. He's very bland and uninteresting. Yes, he's made some very memorable films, I'll admit that. Saturday Night Fever, Wargames, Short Circuit, Stakeout, all classic films. He gets the job done; no frills, no style, and that's kind of how I've always thought of him, much like Roger Spottiswoode (Shoot to Kill). It's as if the visual aspect of his films come as an afterthought, with zero effort put into how stylish the film will be. I remember being a teenager and seeing Point of No Return at the theater and just being so shocked at how bland his remake of a visually brilliant film was. I just couldn't get past that, and the same problem plagues this great film. I'd say 90% of this film was shot using handheld, which was annoying, and just felt very lazy. I saw so much potential to make such a visually arresting film, and had someone else directed it, like say.....Tony Scott, Blue Thunder would have been kicked up about another 10 notches of awesome. As it is, because of the combined strengths of O'Bannon, Jakoby, Scheider, and McDowell, the film is already awesome. It works, it delivers, and it packs a punch. But I can't help but think of how much better it would have been with a more interesting stylistic approach.

Despite my 1 single issue of it being visually uninteresting and lazy, the fact is that Blue Thunder was awesome. I loved it. This is the kind of film you watch as a reminder of how films used to be made, structured, and executed. With expert craftmanship to the story. You can currently pick up the Mill Creek Entertainment Blu ray rather cheaply, for about $7 at most department stores like Target and Walmart. But be warned, while the transfer is solid, there are zero special features and subtitles. So it's about as bare bones as you could possibly get.

80's Thriller Throwback: Shoot to Kill

Shoot to Kill:

1988
Directed by: Roger Spottiswoode

The good:
Great cast. Every single role in this is anchored by a notable actor's strength's, and the result is an exceptionally tight thriller made all the better with an outstanding cast. Tom Berenger is one of the most consistently reliable actors out there, and back around this time when he was considered  A-List , he gave us some very memorable performances in films like Platoon, Someone to Watch Over Me, and Major League. Sydney Poitier had taken a 10 year break from acting (though he still directed 3 films in this acting hiatus), and came out of his semi-retirement with this film. I don't know for a fact if he was retired, or just taking a break, or if something about this film in particular pulled him out of that. Maybe he was just ready to return to film work and found this film to be the right one. What I like about that idea is that he could easily have chosen a simple project, because one thing you will notice within the second act is that this is a seriously challenging role physically, and for someone his age, I was surprised he was able to do it. In fact, it's rather impressive. I don't know a lot of other actors the same age willing to pull all that physical stuff off convincingly. The guy seemed to go out of his way to do a lot of physical stunts himself, when he could easily have had a double do it.

Strong direction. Roger Spottiswoode has never been an interesting director for me on a visual level. Sure he get's the job done, but you can't really "identify" a Roger Spottiswoode film just by his visual aesthetic the way you can with a lot of other directors. Yet here he does an outstanding job behind the camera and it was a solid surprise for me. While everything is shot pretty straight-forward, it's this technique that really works to the films advantage, and most importantly, he keeps the camera still, which was another big surprise. Since a huge chunk of the film takes place in the wilderness, you'd think any director would take the easy route and use handheld on the uneven terrain, but surprisingly he doesn't, and nearly every single shot, no matter how difficult, is done without the use of steadicam or handheld, which was an achievement on it's own.

Great stuntwork. Another surprise for me here. There's just really something to seeing a guy actually hanging off the side of a cliff, and not done using a green screen or CGI. Even today, no matter how hard they try, they still can't make it look real, so to see stuntmen and the real actors falling off a cliff, hanging from a thin rope, or interacting with a real bear, well it's just really something to see. It adds so much more intensity to the scenes when it really looks like they're in real danger, as opposed to the other way when you can tell they're just hanging in front of a green screen.

Delivers the thrills. I didn't know what to expect going in, other than I knew some of it took place in the wilderness. I was surprised to see that while that is true, the film both starts and ends in the city, giving the film a more broad scope in terms of location and geography. When it comes right down to it, the film is tight, taught, and filled to the bring with suspense and thrills. The film does a great job in keeping you guessing as to who the killer is, but the biggest downside to seeing this so many years later is that you know who the killer is automatically once you see the credits and hear the voice of the killer on the phone in the early scenes. Still, it doesn't take away from the film at all. You still have a great time watching the filmmakers try to conceal the identity until much later in the film.

The bad:
There is no bad in this film. Honestly. I couldn't fine a single aspect to nitpick, which is a very rare thing. This film was just about as perfect an 80's thriller as could possibly be and from beginning to end, I loved every second of it.