This is one more legend that’s a bit of a black box. I know there’s a monster besieging a research station in the Arctic or Antarctic, and that’s about it. I think almost the entire movie goes without showing the monster? It might be an alien but it’s left ambiguous? The poster is as much of a masterpiece as the movie, they say, and it is a fantastic poster.
I dimly recall a TV special about practical and visual effects in horror movies in general that may have touched on this movie, but I’m not sure. The images I’m remembering could be almost any horror movie, but they could fit a frozen research station for all I know.
I’ve seen many stories about an obscenely rich person obtaining living characters as a personal plaything for themselves or their children, but I doubt any of them were direct references to this story so much as just yet another commentary on how rich people live in a completely different world.
I think Jackie Gleason is primarily known for playing a decidedly blue collar guy, so it seems like an unusual choice to cast him as the eccentric millionaire. However it seems like most of Richard Pryor‘s movies in the 80s were about him reacting to finding himself in impossible situations, so the dissonance of agreeing to something bizarre he doesn’t believe in because he needs the money fits that pattern.
The first brief summations I read for this just say that the character is a veteran having a hard time coming home and getting into “trouble”. Which also describes First Blood. A slightly more involved summary mentioned that he ends up in a criminal heist for the mob, which I can certainly see being played for laughs or drama, and in fact, the book this is based on was a serious drama, but this is a dramedy because the studio insisted that Richard Pryor do comedic scenes. I think it will be interesting to see Pryor do as much drama as the suits will allow him to.
I didn’t even know this was a Roger Corman movie when I selected it, but as a B-movie that looks a fair bit exploitative, it’s not terribly surprising. I’ve been drawn lately toward b-movies as it becomes harder to find suitable major releases through the channels I’m accustomed to.
It’s even confusing just what the threat is. The poster depicts an insectlike creature, the tagline refers to a human-alien hybrid, and the summary in front of me talks about “Subject 20” having been created with an eye toward preventing a food crisis. I’m not sure any of the promotional materials are all that concerned with the movie they’re promoting.
The problem with Sylvester Stallone’s franchises is that they were really never meant to be franchises. But then I say that having never seen any of the Rocky or Rambo sequels. However, I get the sense that the Rocky movies did better at retaining its emotional center than Rambo.
As I understand this, the original Rambo film is a fairly faithful telling of a story contemplating what happens to Vietnam veterans with difficulty adjusting to civilian life (in this case, get triggered and start shooting people), while the later movies recast the character as a warrior put in contexts that need a warrior for the sake of letting him shoot more people. So I expect this one to be thoughtful on a level somewhat beyond a typical gritty action movie.
Stallone gets typed as an action star, but it’s clear from Rocky that he can portray human vulnerability, and I hope to see that on display here in the pacing scenes.
This film’s use of archive footage within the narrative reminds me of What’s Up, Tiger Lilly?, but when I try to draw a tighter comparison, they aren’t really all that alike. The Woody Allen film takes a few foreign films and uses the audio to dub a new story onto it. I can’t quite tell if this is new material supported by old films or new material stringing old film clips together, but there’s much more new content on the screen than in “Tiger Lilly”. I get the idea it has more in common with Forrest Gump than the other. I’m sure there’s a better example of new material interacting with old material to tell a new story, but I can’t bring it to mind.
Otherwise, this looks like a standard noir detective spoof rested on Steve Martin’s capable back. It’s hard to say much past that, since everything I can find about it focuses on the classic clips.
Few movies have such radical differences between the theatrical version and the Director’s cut. In fact, the only one I can think of that comes close is Star Trek: The Motion Picture. In order to split the difference, the version I’m watching is “The Final Cut (2007). It’s probably the same in intent to the Director’s Cut, but I believe in putting the director’s intent on the screen, so I chose the latest version for the same reason I prefer widescreen over fullscreen.
Anyway, I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, and I’m expecting to see a familiar element here and there in a completely repainted world.
I always thought this was an action movie. I expected Arnold Schwarzenegger to basically just run around all buff and kill people and there would be a plot that facilitates that. Looking at the box, it seems this is more of a fantasy, and it’s apparently based off a comic book, which from my experience with non-spandex comics means this is going to be much deeper than Mortal Kombat with Austrian accents.
More ways I was wrong on the other side of the link.