Badmovies.org Forum

A collection of 80's action film reviews. I nearly blew something out trying not to laugh in my cubicle last week while reading these. I thought it might be of interest for those of us who have already read all the reviews on this site.  

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/80saction/80saction.html

One-third movie reviews, two-thirds sanctimonious left-wing political rant.

How entertaining.

I read the intro and a few of the reviews and I was pretty unimpressed.

One thing I like about Nathan and Andrew (and Ken and Liz and a few others) is a willingness to get into the movie and take it on it's own terms and then criticize it or analyze it or enjoy it on those terms.  Andrew in particular seems to take a general view of 'were the elements of the movie fun, no matter how stupid they were?'.  Nathan  generaly takes more of an approach of 'do the elements of the story actually hold together in a sort of logical or consistant manner?'  Both of these approaches, and  know I'm being painfully simplistic to both of them, allow one to look at a movies as 'enjoyable' rather than as 'good or bad',  It starts with a willingness to really get into the movie (as much as can be done which sometimes isn't that deep) and take the movie on it's own terms, rather than bringing in a preconceived view of what the movie is, or should be, or they'd like it to be.  This willngness to take the movie on it's own terms comes from a general appreciation that these things can actually be fun and a willingess to at least offer respect to the people who put the hard work into them (whether they keep that respect depends on the results, Mr Pyun).  In other words, they have a general fondness for the materiel

However, too many bad movie review sites fall into the trap of trying to be too funny with a certain nastiness that seems to be a point in it's own.  A sorta of bulliness in 'ha ha, this is a stupid movie so let's just spend an hour (or a column) ripping on it'  This is often coupled with a rather shallowness in actually watching and attemptng to 'get' the movie in the first place.  This is one reason I rarely go from Nathan's site to MonsterHunter.  I read a number of his reviews and they always struck me as more 'insult the movie for the sake of insulting it and stay above it without really trying to know what is going on'.  In particular, I gave up after his review of "The Great Escape" because I never really got the feeling that he actually watched he movie, at least not with anything approching understanding what the movie was about.

Which brings me back to Ruthless Reviews, or at least the 80s action movie summary.  I read a handful of them, mostly of movies I had already seen (Beastmaster, Toy Soldiers, a few Segal movies) and I definately got the impression that this wasn't a review of the movie but rather a rewview by someone who already had an agenda of what they wanted the movies to be about and saw the movie only through that lens and never really took the movies on their own terms and try to understand, much less empathize, with what they were about.  In particular, I thought the focus on 'homoeroticism' was more the reviews attempts to be snide or clever or a smart-aleck or something.  "Look at all these big, buff, macho guys, it's really gay softcore porn"  Face it, the reason all these movies had tough guys with ripped shirts and oiled pecs was because woman want 'em and men want to be like 'em.  Yes, in a way, it is a male fantasy, but not like the review seemed to be insisting was there.  The political angle simularly seemed to be the reviewers own political bent in choosing to interpret the movies in light of what he thought going in that the movie was going to be about, in a very simplistic manner, without much thought about what the movies were really about.

The whole thing got pretty boring after a few reviews, and more important;y, I got the impression that the reviewer doesn't really actually like to watch movies or doesn't bother to watch them for any reason other than to laugh at them in a cruel attempt to make himself feel clever



Post Edited (11-29-04 13:21)

To each his own I suppose. I just thought the homoerotic jokes were funny. I didnt read too much into it after that.

Wow, Freep, great review of b-movie reviewing.

B-movies are, to a lot of us I think, an art unto themselves.  Geez, when you think of what can be done with a very low budget, when it works it's amazing.  The director that relies on vision rather than million dollar overproduction is, much of the time, staying truer to the art of filmmaking.  I think, then, most of us give some leeway for when it doesn't work quite so well -  I guess one could say "well, at least they TRIED.'

I got a few good laughs out of it, but I have to agree with Freep. Better to find the humour in each movie than attempt to apply the same jokes to every movie, even when they don't fit.

When the jokes did fit, they were funny, however. I've always thought the villain in Commando looked extremely gay. So much that I had to wonder if the filmmakers intended it that way. The homoerotic analysis worked in that case, but only because it really fit.

Of course, I don't see any homosexual undertones in these movies. You have to look at them as movies for our immature side, the part of us that used to hang out in bars with a bunch of other guys, being as crude and rude and stupid as we wanted to be. It's the part that still has us coming up with excuses like fishing trips to continue going out and doing that stuff, now that we've settled down. Our wives and families have enriched our lives, but they are also a civilizing influence on us. We'd never do half the stuff we used to do. Age and a career tend to have the same effect.

The action hero should really be looked at as a perpetual teenager, or at least someone with a teenage mentality. Freedom without responsibility. Occasional girlfriends, but nothing permanent enough to get in the way of doing guy stuff most of the time. The classic action hero is an uncommitted loner who does what he wants, has nothing to lose, fears nothing, strikes back at people when they make him mad, without any guilt or real consequences. And he lives like a slob while somehow managing to stay in shape and look good. You can see why he strikes a chord with young guys, and those who used to be - even if he doesn't really exist.

The action movie is escapist entertainment, and the hero is someone through whom you can get that vicarious thrill.

Or you can simply look at it from the point of view that the audience is primarily a bunch of boys paying money to see stuff get wrecked. They don't want love scenes, and the female characters, for the most part, aren't going to be slugging it out with the guys. So, we get a bit of eye candy, or someone for the villain to endanger, but no more.

It might have been intentional when you think about it. The gay badguy in Commando I mean. The bad guy was Vernon Wells who also played the crazy mowhawk guy from Road Warrior. The Road Warrior character was gay. The leather and chainmail is an obvious attempt to capitalize off the road warrior look. They may have been trying to play off the homosexual aspect of that character as well. Either way It just came off as silly. Strangely enough Vernon Wells did Mighty Morphin Power Rangers a few years ago as a bad guy and they put him in a Road Warrior type getup again.

There needs to be a term (I suppose the Germans probably already have a word) for negative criticism on grounds of a specious premise. Like "the plot of this porno makes no sense" or "the situations on this sitcom are unrealistic".

Nobody likes my link. I shall hang my head in shame.

It's a possibility that they were trying to make him look gay. Either that, or they just put together a bunch of costume elements that seemed tough on their own, but came together in a Village People sort of way.

Didn't help that the moustache and haircut made him look like Freddy Mercury on steroids.



Post Edited (11-30-04 07:26)

Anything that gets a discussion going is good - as long as it isn't political.

Seen it before, I even put a link to the same place at the Jabootu board some time ago. I have to agree that the reviews are very political and that the "message" gets quite tiresome after a while (I should note that I mostly agree with it, so to people who don't it must verge on the unbearable), but I still think the site is great. That piece on "Commando" is histerical, and some others follow quite closely.

Yeah the Commando review is funny as hell. I do have to admit some of the other stuff, especially if you look at the stuff other than the 80's action reviews can get boring, and there's some unnecesary political jabs thrown in there.

I didn't check out the link until after commenting yesterday, and I'm just about to go back there now. I have special memories of some of those movies. I mean, I like the link.

Yeah, me too. Me and my dad used to sneak off to the dollar cinema to see this stuff when I was a little kid. We'd go home and tell mom we were out watching Snow White or some crap.

My whole reason for the site is to get others to see the enjoyment in watching these sorts of movies.  And I really do enjoy b-movies and bad movies.

Also, we watched "Death Race 2000" the other night.  The Marines seemed to enjoy that one a lot.  The SgtMaj found out I had that DVD out here and immediately asked me to borrow it.  In the old man's words "A Classic."

Funny, I just read on IMDB that Vernon Wells actually said he thought he looked like "Freddy Mercury on steroids" Dead on description Mr. C : )

You're kidding. I have to go read that.

What do you expect? These movies were made in the Reaganite era and reflect the smash-bang-wallop, right-wing imperatives of the time and was a crap decade for movies in most people's books (although I happen to like it in a kitchy kind of way).

You probably already found it, but here it is just in case.  

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0920460/bio

You know, when you put Bennett and Freddie Mercury side by side, the resemblance is really quite remarkable. This is what always prevented me from taking Bennett seriously as a villain. Schwarzenegger vs. Queen. I could just imagine Bennett suddenly bursting into song: "Mamaaaaa....Just killed a maaaan....."

(http://www3.sympatico.ca/lorijac/bennett.jpg)



Post Edited (12-06-04 10:04)

80' s action movies had one purpose blow stuff up, shoot  an outrageous number of people, and kill the 2 dimensional bad guy off in a unique way.

I always loved the part in Commando when Bill Duke and Arnold are duking it out.

Bill Duke,  "This Green Beret is gonna kick your ass!"
 Arnold, "I eat Green Berets for breakfast and right now I'm hungry"
Rae Dawn "I don't believe this macho bulls**t!"

Now that's screenwriting.

Anybody that injects political subtext into these movies is really missing the point.

LOL!!! Maybe if they do Commando the musical that can happen.

I'm kind of interested in that kind of Chomskian way of defining things very broadly as right wing. Like, anything celebratory about retribution, or anything made for profit, etc.

Hey, this site's desperate for hits:
http://davemunger.blogspot.com

Once heard they will be doing a "Fight Club: The Musical", so everything is possible.

By your logic, we should "expect" nothing but right wing reviews bashing all the politically correct stuff that's coming out today.  And nothing but right wing reviews bashing all the environmentalist schlock that was churned out during the '70s.  And right wing reviews bashing all the drug addled messes that were made during the '60s.

But I don't suppose you'd "expect" that, but to the contrary, you'd be pretty upset by it?  You probably expect reviews that are about the movie, and if somebody wants to go on a political rant, let them write an article about politics - but don't try to pass it off as a movie review.

That's what I expect as well.

What kind of films were you referring to? What would you like to see instead?

>By your logic, we should "expect" nothing but right wing reviews >bashing all the politically correct stuff that's coming out today.

Hard to get such a perspective on current movie trends, but I think the industry and audience tastes have matured to some extent.

>But I don't suppose you'd "expect" that, but to the contrary, >you'd be pretty upset by it?

Erm, no, I don't get upset that easily! I'd be a little miffed if ALL reviews came with a political slant. If Andy looked for political bias all the time it would take the edge off his humour. Ruthless Reviews is a one-off and it's FUNNY. Try to be a little less offended!

I think the industry and audience tastes have matured to some extent.

Have you seen what's out these days?  Scooby-Doo? The Grinch That Stole Christmas?  Gigli?