Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

Directed by Stephen Frears, from the play by Christopher Hampton, based on a 1782 novel by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos.

Starring: Glenn Close, John Malkovich, Michelle Pfeiffer, Swoosie Kurtz, Uma Thurman, Keanu Reeves.

Positives: Beautiful cinematography, costume, art/set design and musical score. Eye candy, won awards for art design, etc (Muller, Films of the 80s).

Based on the epistolary novel les liaisons dangereuses (1782) by Pierre Ambrose Francois Choderlos de Laclos http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=2588, watching this movie is like watching (or reading) a neoclassical play, with its witty, albeit wordy dialogue. I would rather have read novel, though, because in the context of a Hollywood film some of the dialogue seems…I don’t know…corny.

An 80s theme evident in Dangerous Liaisons is the idea of a decadent upper class or the evils of the aristocracy and how its members use money to get what they want. (Although 80s films often feature upper middle class protagonists, they’re still middle class mostly.) On the other hand, the “good” characters in Dangerous Liaisons are also aristocrats, but they happen to be pathetic victims of Merteuil and Valmont.

The film, being a period piece and very well-done in that respect, holds up visually. The stunning beauty of the film and the score made the rest of it bearable to me, but barely. Nevertheless, I never had any desire to see this film and don’t plan on ever sitting through it again. I’ll explain why in a bit.

In terms of gender/sex issues, I don’t think it holds up. First, it seems that, despite its stance against the corruption of the upper classes and the horrors of contemporary education for women (which Laclos explores more thorougly in another work), it shows the dangers of an educated woman with power. I think Laclos was writing based on old ideas of what “a woman’s place” should be. Though Enlightenment era philosophers and writers like Laclos rejected religious and moral traditions, they had backwards ideas about women and non-whites, e.g. even Rousseau was sexist. I acknowledge that I could be totally off but I also know that readers can interpret his work in various ways. Assuming that the work is misogynistic in nature, the filmmakers could have compensated for some of that; however, (aside from the plot) it still features lots of shots of naked female body and none of the men. None that I remember. We may have been treated to naked Malkovich-butt, but I shudder at the thought.

Glenn Close, who plays Merteuil, is pretty much flawless, as usual. Malkovich, whom I cannot stand, does a good job as Valmont. Everyone is good, and the young Keanu’s burnout accent is not as detectable as I had feared. Michelle Pfeiffer plays her usual wounded, vulnerable, fragile, beautiful character (she was that way even as Catwoman in Batman Returns, particularly in the beginning and towards the end). But she and Uma Thurman play the crappy roles they got really well.

The oh-so-virginal, angelic Mademoiselle Cecile de Volanges (Uma Thurman).

The oh-so-virtuous, angelic, meek Madame Marie de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer).

Some still shots of the characters: http://www.homevideos.com/moments/dangerous.htm. (Glenn Close isn’t naked in the movie but her cleavage gets lots of attention; there’s a still shot devoted to just that.)

:::SPOILER ALERT:::

OK, this is some of the beef I have with the movie.

Valmont is one evil son-of-a-bitch. For all the bitching I’m about to do on how women are portrayed in this film, I have to say: he makes men look bad. He destroys every woman he comes in contact with in the film, except for his paid prostitute.

The only woman that is ‘better at the game’ than Valmont, is Merteuil (Glenn Close). While they both use money and sex to get what they want, she is better at manipulating and controlling people. Merteuil is the only woman capable of ruining him without completely losing herself, but she is STILL destroyed in the end!

Both Valmont and Merteuil deserve what they get, for Merteuil is a selfish prig as well, but although he dies and she lives, he dies almost a hero while her dignity and reputation are gone. She starts out with a good rep, he with a bad rep; in the end he gets somewhat of a dignified death, with room for sympathy from the audience, while her rep is destroyed and the audience feels good about it.

There is a point where Merteuil could ‘get’ him, teach him a lesson. Certain moments indicate that she is his puppet master and he knows it. But she ends up failing in large part because, like every other weak woman he messes with, she loves him, too. Indirectly, her jealousy gets the better of her, and he ends up ‘getting’ her in the end.

Falling in love with Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) teaches him, but it costs Tourvel’s life. Although he falls desperately in love with her, the film could have done more with that. He doesn’t seem as in love, as defeated by it, as his dying words indicate—and, in my opinion, not enough to convince the audience in the end that he had learned his lesson (especially since he keeps harassing Merteuil about keeping her promise!). The film could have given him an emotional breakdown or something. All we get are flashbacks during the duel scene of him and Tourvel making love, which distract him. I’m left with the impression that he probably would have survived the love he felt for Tourvel if his own exploits outside the Merteuil/Valmont/Tourvel triangle, i.e. his affair with Cecile (Uma Thurman), hadn’t led to his death. But that affair conveniently provided the springboard for Merteuil’s revenge against him for falling for Tourvel. Ooooh, that Merteuil is crafty.

"Whoa! Dude! Did what I think just happened ...happen?!" (allusion to ending of film)

Back to Merteuil. The film begins with her looking in mirror, looking beautiful and refined. She is RICH and VAIN. The movie ends with her looking humiliated and broken, removing her makeup. That, and death of Valmont can symbolize the downfall of the aristocracy, but her fall is more humiliating. (Remember, his is kind of heroic and tragic??) The ending illustrates Merteuil’s comment earlier that “vanity and happiness are incompatible.”

The evil, vain, crafty Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil at the beginning of DL.

I felt exhausted watching these female characters’ terrible downfall, one after another, while the man gets his redemption, his hero’s farewell. He pretty much rapes Cecile, yet succeeds in turning her into a sex fiend who can’t get enough of him. He topples the virtuous, untouchable, devoted wife of another man, Tourvel, leaving her weak, crazed, sick, and then dead. He even defeats his female match in the end from beyond the grave.

I want to recommend this film, but I couldn’t help but feel, as the end credits rolled: “That was two hours of my life I won’t get back.”

Frankly, for all its expensive production, Dangerous Liaisons was excruciating to watch. But if you want to see an 18th/early 19th-century period piece with classical and baroque music, watch the brilliant, earlier film AMADEUS (1984) directed by Milos Forman, which is one of my all time favorite films. Like the poster says, it won 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. It has the requisite sexist moments, but overall it is FAR superior. It is also visually stunning with a great score. I got the feeling that DL borrowed heavily from the art direction of Amadeus (which makes me wonder if that's why Forman was compelled to make a version of Dangerous Liaisons entitled Valmont in 1989, which bombed.). Amadeus is clever, moving, exciting, and quite funny, with excellent performances by F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce.

Poltergeist (1982)

Tobe Hooper, of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) fame, directed Poltergeist, although Hooper's pitiless, blood-and-guts sensibility hardly seemed to be a good fit for Steven Spielberg who wrote the screenplay and produced the 1982 hit film Poltergeist http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084516/. The movie works well.

The plot shows a suburban southern California family of five and their dog being haunted by entities that take over their home. Ironically, the family’s neighborhood bears a striking resemblance to E.T.’s neighborhood which is directed by Steven Spielberg in the same year http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083866/.

The movie kicks off with the ordinary end of late night TV programming. The Star Spangled Banner is playing over a video displaying American patriotism, then abruptly ends with dead air or TV static. Carol Anne the family’s youngest child, wakes up, walks to the TV and begins a conversation. This scene repeats a second time and you can see a ghostly image emerge from the TV and fly out of the TV over Carol Anne’s head and disappear into the bedroom wall behind her. Carol Anne playfully says, "They're Here!" From this point forward the family’s home is haunted by a Poltergeist because their home was built on top of a cemetery, in which only the headstones had been moved. A poltergeist as a ghost that manifests itself by noises, rappings, and the creation of disorder http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poltergeist.

The movie has been linked to a Poltergeist curse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist_curse because “six of the stars from these movies died deaths that are characterized as mysterious or tragic, and four of these six did not live a normal lifespan.” Specifically Heather O'Rourke and Dominique Dunne (the daughter of Dominick Dunne http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/dunne/).

Poltergeist was nominated for four Oscars and won for “Best Visual Effects”, “Best Horror Film”, and “Best Make-Up” in addition to Zelda Rubinstein who plays the clairvoyant wins “Best Supporting Actress”. If you’re a fan of “movie mistakes” you can locate them here http://www.moviemistakes.com/film997.

I enjoyed the movie though only some of its special effects hold up today. The movie is distinctly 80's because it highlights the picture perfect upper-middle class suburban family. Therefore, it is enjoyable to see their world turn upside down.

BLADE RUNNER (1982) - Director's Cut

Blade Runner (1982). Directed by Ridley Scott. Starring Harrison Ford (Deckard), Sean Young (Rachel), Daryl Hannah (Pris), and a BRILLIANT performance by Rutger Hauer (Batty).

So, this is a cult classic I decided to watch after reading some of what Jurgen Muller’s book (Films of the 80s) had to say about it. Blade Runner is featured prominently in the book. I was intrigued by the visuals and the philosophical aspects. For the record, I haven’t read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick, upon which the movie is based, but I’m sure it would have enhanced the experience.

All right.

At the risk of sounding like a ditz…

!!OHMIGOSH, I would have to watch this film, like, 84 more times in order to catch everything!!

I mean, in order for me to thoroughly appreciate, understand, and conclude anything definitively, I’d have to watch it at least a few more times. HOWEVER, even after the first time, my head is spinning with ideas. Oh, fun! But my response to the film was not entirely positive.

First, though it was obviously way ahead of its time, today it looks dated. It looks like an 80s movie, mainly because of the vehicles. But the film is visually impressive. I don’t think Peter Jackson’s computer-created 'wide angle shots' of Mordor are that much more impressive than Ridley Scott’s 'wide shots' of Los Angeles in 2019. The sets are impressive, though some of the machinery look plastic and cheap, but that’s okay. The physical world can be disappointing. But we’ll get to that later.

My suggestion to Ridley Scott if he ever decided to “update” it (I can hear the purists gasping and frantically groping for their inhalers…kidding!) he would have to chuck most of the synthesizer music and score the film with an actual orchestra. This is a real problem for so many of these classic 80s films. Over time, synth music has become heavily associated with TV show music, e.g. Doogie Howser. Nintendo, too. It’s not effective, dramatically. (When Star Trek: The Next Generation aired in the late 80s and early 90s, its orchestral score contributed heavily to its polished, theatrical feel, and it still holds up despite some of the now-cheesy set decor. No, I don’t have my own inhaler.)

I rented the director’s cut, which apparently includes more about Deckard’s status as the very thing he is commissioned to hunt down and kill: androids, or “replicants.”

Themes in the movie: Descartes, fours, grids, squares, eyes, Asians, unicorns (the last two were facetious…but they mean something, I just know it!)

The opening shots feature a huge eye and a pyramid, separate shots, but together they are reminiscent of the novus ordo seclorum, or “new order of the ages” idiom on our dollar bills, which can be translated as “a new world order” (I took Latin for three years in high school a gajillion years ago and that is one thing I remember).

(Sorry, I tried to center that eye above the pyramid. I didn't work. But, you get the point.)

This new world is an L.A. that is—on the ground—gloomy, crowded, wet, claustrophobic, dark, squalid and thoroughly infiltrated and dominated by….ASIANS AND ASIAN CULTURE!! Yes, those rat bastards have taken over our precious City of Dreams. See, we saw it coming!! Now, look. See what happened?*

*Now, BEING OF ASIAN DESCENT MYSELF, I couldn’t help but take notice, and offense, to the portrayal of Asians in this film. On one hand, anti-racist messages can be extracted from the story. On the other hand, this was the 80s, and America’s paranoia about Asia’s economic rise and impending dominance threatened America’s identity as numero uno. The multicultural urban jungle in Blade Runner seems to reflect the xenophobic paranoia of turn-of-the-century America (late 19th and early 20th century) when immigrants were pouring to America’s cities, and also late 20th and early 21st century America, as the immigration issue heats up again. So, in L.A. in 2019, most of the well-to-do are on luxurious off-world sites; but the minorities, white authority figures, and a few physically defective white humans have been left behind on the ground??! Also, I wonder about Pris and Batty, 'Aryan' as they are, and how they are referred to as “perfect” [particularly Batty, who looks healthier than Pris and is a higher-level replicant...I think] despite their status as slaves. I know “perfect” means that they have no defects, except their short life spans. They don’t need glasses, for instance. But, if we go with the idea that their looks are supposed to enhance that perception of perfection for the audience, maybe their fit Aryan perfect-ness is supposed to drive up the audience’s empathy for them and their plight. Or, maybe it was a way for a majority white audience to identify with the characters, to drive point of the inhumanity of slavery, regardless of race.

I don’t know. So many mixed messages in this film!

Following the pattern of 80s films, it could boil down to American integrity and freedom, regardless of race, versus foreign takeover and the loss of American paradise, as told in Die Hard.

I found it interesting that the genetic designer also has a short life span.

A couple of quick notes. . .

EYES: The replicants’ pupils look like camera lenses, including the owl’s eyes. Tyrell wears HUGE, thick, SQUARE GLASSES. Gaff has ice blue, striking eyes. Lots of eye close-ups throughout. The replicants’ eyes are designed by a caricatured Asian fellow; I’m not sure what that means yet.

I wonder if the emphasis on the eyes simply reminds us that they are windows to the soul and, yes, the replicants have these windows as well; i.e., since films are visual, they are a way to express that replicants have souls. It could be that the eyes represent wisdom or an omniscient God(?). Or it could be our collective unconscious, absorbing what we fear our world will become.

On the other hand, eyes are sensory and gather external, physical information.

OK, I will attempt to delve into what I gathered from a philosophical angle. I’m not a philosophy major, so forgive me if I am butchering any of this. Keeping in mind Descartes' internalist theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes), perhaps the eyes symbolize the physically observed world, or sensory perception, juxtaposed against the Cartesian ideas of the perceptions of self that exist in one’s mind. According to Descartes, what is in the mind determines existence, not what is observed through the senses. What I gather is that the replicants have the capacity to think and feel as humans do, and indeed Batty and Pris do. They are sensitive, sentient beings. But they are not human; they are artificially created life forms. A funny Asian guy designed their eyes, for goodness sake! While the eyes might be remarkably efficient (perhaps even fuel efficient!) they were crafted by Asian hands nonetheless, which I guess to a white, American audience might underline the notion of artifice, cold-calculation (notice the freezing lab), and mass-production; ergo, the replicants' physical makeup do not determine their value and dignity…what determines that is that they are sentient beings! For example, Pris quotes Descartes' I think; therefore, I am. And Rachael is alive, and her memories, though not entirely hers, are part of her consciousness and part of who she is. She has emotional ties to those memories.

Here is an exchange (not verbatim) between Rachel and Deckard:
Rachel, at the piano: “I remember lessons…don’t know if it was me, or Tyrell’s niece.”
Deckard: “You play beautifully.”
This to me illustrates Descartes’ notion of reality as fully cognitive; reality is what you make it. A romantic notion, in the literary sense. That is, it’s a mode of thinking suitable for romantics.

Oh, the intimate scene between Deckard and Rachel when he kisses her grossed me out. It was forceful AND she looked unhappy AND the saxophone music made the entire scene soooo limburger. Anyway, if we accept that they are both replicants we can see that they are both grasping for feeling. Or, he is and is forcing her to play along. And, miraculously, she ends up loving him. YUCK. Not a good message for you young guys out there.

I’m not going to go into the sexism issue in this film. It just hit me, though: Batty represents physical “perfection,” and Pris probably does, too, up to a point (before she gets super pale and paints a mask on her face—hey, another eye thing!). But, she’s female, so no dice. Also, the “evil” female replicant was a dirty whore of an exotic dancer! She is the first to be aggressively hunted and destroyed by Deckard. And, of course, Rachel, Deckard’s girl, is demure and fragile, even though she could probably snap his neck like a twig—unless, of course he’s a replicant, too, which we don't know for sure.

There were grid patterns throughout the film, recalling the Cartesian plane/coordinate system. In the kissing scene, a grid is hard against the back of Rachel’s head, emphasizing her artificial physical quality… or maybe reminding us of her dignity as a sentient, just-as-good-as-human being in terms of Descartes (she thinks, therefore she is). A shadow of the same grid covers Deckard’s face as well.

The white unicorn in Deckard’s mind is just as real, or even more real, than his surroundings. The memory of the unicorn is a clue that Deckard himself may be a replicant. The ending, where he finds the silver paper unicorn left by Gaff confirmed this to me and had me wondering whether or not Gaff was one, too, because he had such distinctive eyes. (Or were his blue eyes a means to separate him from the rest of the Asians? His eyes seemed to get bluer as we figure out that he’s a good guy. Or maybe I just realized that his eyes were blue later on in the film.)

I will cut the movie analysis short, but I took tons of notes watching this movie. I would like to watch it again. Yes, some things about it were disappointing. I can’t help looking at it from a sociological-racial perspective; that is a major aspect of this film. I am just fed up with and refuse to accept false, spoon-fed notions of blond perfection and the portrayal of non-white, “other” races as something other than American in America. I grew up watching lots of TV and movies during the 80s just accepting it and kind of believing it subconsciously, until I realized that it was bullcrap, being that I myself am a non-white, native-born American, who is no less American than someone who would be labeled “all-American.” It’s so easy to buy into that idea, and it has to be that much more automatic if you ARE a white American. These issues are touchy, but they are okay to talk about in a civil way. It’s healthy to talk about things. I’ve had many fascinating discussions about all this stuff with my white husband, who grew up in the south in a traditional Baptist family… and, yes, we actually love each other, A LOT! Because, ultimately, we're way more similar than different (my husband and I have such similar temperatments and likes and dislikes, it's freaky, considering that we grew up in such different environments). And THAT'S the beauty of talking about these types of issues. It gets everything out on the table so everyone understands everyone else; then, people can focus on what really matters, which is the internal.

Having said all that, believe it or not, I do appreciate the film and realize that there are MANY other aspects to it, and many ways of looking at it, and I believe that the film ultimately advocates the dignity of life. I would love to be able to explore Blade Runner and its many dimensions more thoroughly. A couple of the fafillion million gajillion questions I have: Why does Batty spare Deckard; is it because he empathizes with Deckard because he knows that Deckard is a replicant and will die soon anyway? And, what is the significance of Deckard’s apartment number 9732? I’m a math dummy, but it seems like a familiar number somehow. (Anyone?... Anyone?...)

If you are alive and like to think, definitely watch this film and judge it for yourself. I'm so glad I did. Now, I think I need a nap.

Romancing the Stone

This 1984 film is full of romance, mystery and danger. Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner) a hermit character, steps into the fast lane as she heads off to Columbia to save her kidnapped sister Elaine. Once arriving in this non-English speaking country, Joan Wilder proceeds to get on the wrong bus and her journey begins. The wild women that Joan Wilder has written about in so many of her novels, has become a reality when she encouters a shoot out with Jack T. Colton (Michael Douglas). The mudslide ride in the jungle of Columbia and the shelter provided by the long lost plane full of marijuana are just some of the exciting journeys they take.

The on screen connection between Turner and Douglas is enhanced with Danny DeVito who plays Ralph, the kidnappers brother.

Director Robert Zemicks does an excellent job with the music to enhance the serious scenes and quickly follows them with something comical. The jungle scenes and swinging vines are sometimes a little far fetched for me, but they made the movie. The enormous size of the jewel found in the cave caps off the movie but Zemeicks keeps the intrigue going for viewers.

Watching this film again after many years, I still found myself laughing and enjoying the action. I would probably suggest this movie as a rainy day filler but could not see myself spending my Friday night on it.

Sites:
www.imdb.com
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/romancing_the_stone/

Tootsie (1982) by Sydeny Pollack

Sydney Pollack’s 1982 film Tootsie is a comedy that should be viewed by all. This 119 minutes film grossed over $177 million in box offices and had 9 Oscar nominations, with a Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.
Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) who is an unemployed actor back steps into an audition after his friend Sandy was dismissed. Dorsey embraces the southern grandma character roll for a Daytime Soap Opera show perfectly and is quick to change his life after getting the role of Dorothy Michaels.

Genna Davis’s debut in this film with an exercise scene in bra and small silky underwear might grab those looking for a little sizzle. Dorsey is quick to realize what women endure to be beautiful, oh forget that, just to be woman.

Bill Murray and Dabney Coleman bring life into the twisted drama of a man pretending to be a woman in everyday life. An engagement and broken up love twist add to the humor of this film.

After ratings soared on the Daytime soap, Dorothy’s contract is renewed and the pressure of being a woman 24-7 is enough for Michael Dorsey. He quickly schemes to change the dramatic scene on live television that will end his role as Dorothy forever..

Pollack does an excellent job bring viewers into this film with personal associations. The scenes were simple but utilized well. Camera angles and lighting was utilized well to accent the film. The laughter will never stop in this film and is a must see in my book!

Some other sites to check out:
www.imdb.com

Coming to A-meh-rica

How was John Landis’ 1988 film Coming to America? Meh. It wasn’t good; it wasn’t bad. It was just meh.

An average PG-rated romantic comedy disguised as an R-rated Eddie Murphy vehicle (drops a couple F-bombs and shows some boobs to pack in the kids), the movie is a far cry from the raucous work of Landis’ Animal House or Trading Places. Production values, however, are all top-notch with some nice looking costumes and scenery.

A fairly standard take on the fish out of water story, the film follows Prince Akeem (Murphy) and Semmi (Arsenio Hall) as they come to New York looking for a worthy wife for Akeem. Where in New York would you find such a woman? Well, Queens, of course!

The highlight of the movie is the make-up effects by Rick Baker. His genius transforms Murphy and Hall into multiple characters throughout the film. (This is just a taste of what Baker and Murphy offer in The Nutty Professor.) Murphy and Hall are much more interesting in these minor roles than they are as the film’s leads.

The bad fashions of the late 80s were distracting and I kept thinking to myself, “Did we really dress like that?” Dr. Huxtable sweaters and balloon mini-skirts make it look like Flashdance exploded all over the cast.

Stay Gold

S.E. Hinton's 1967 novel The Outsiders has been a staple of junior high reading classes for years. The story of rival gangs violently protecting their turf continues to resonate with today's young readers. (Just check out the paperback's sales ranking on Amazon.) Francis Coppola's 1983 film version faithfully captures the book's world of alienated teens in the 60s.

Broken homes, smokes, and switchblades make up the lives of Ponyboy Curtis (C. Thomas Howell) and the gang of "greasers" that are his extended family. Caught in the crossfire of a class war with the "socs"--the more affluent teenagers from the north side of town--Ponyboy and Johnny (Ralph Macchio) run away after killing one of the soc leaders (Leif Garrett). But when they save a bunch of children from a fire at an abandoned church, with the help of Matt Dillon's Dallas, the boys can return to town in time for the big rumble.

Although the 60s setting lends the film the look of a teen classic (think Rebel Without a Cause), it eventually cracks under the weight of the melodrama that characterizes such films. One too many characters are lit by a dreamy Technicolor sunrise/sunset, a la Gone With the Wind, and an easy-listening theme song by Stevie Wonder only serves to pile on the schmaltz.

The film, however, does get some things right. The assembled cast is a powerhouse of talent that also includes Patrick Swayze, Diane Lane, Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez, and Tom Cruise. These young actors are all consistently good in their portrayals of the troubled Oklahoma teens. The movie's message to always retain some sense of child-like wonder is a good sentiment (although, I figure it is more the work of Hinton than Coppola).

Nepotism Alert: Keep an eye out for a young Sophia Lost in Translation Coppola!

Making light of Mr.Montana's anger problems.

SCARFACE (1983)
WARNING: The video is very explicit!

In the year 1983 Scarface was one of the most controversial films ever. Now, its almost laughable. Don't get me wrong, Scarface is a classic, a truly phenomenal film. To the extent that it has left its mark in pop-culture history, whether it is through cult film lovers, or the professional athletes and rappers that have Tony Montana splashed across there homes, via MTV Cribs. The film is about Tony Montana, a Cuban refugee, who works his way up through Miami’s drug world. I sat down to watch this movie, and my family began to join in.

Strangely, we found ourselves laughing at scenes that weren’t intended to be laughed at. We found that over time a film that was originally serious and intense is now almost comical. I would suggest watching the film twice for those who have never seen it. Once with a serious focus, and the second time focus on making light of the situations. Pay close attention to the facial expressions, and the slurring of words by Al Pacino. As Tony Montana becomes angered about something, the movie does a thing that resembles old kung-fu movies (or Kill Bill for those with more modern tastes) the scene plays loud orchestra music and zooms in on his eyes, to show the anger of Tony. It is humorous to see Tony go ballistic Often the littlest thing sets him off, he goes completely crazy. Looking at the costumes is funny. In the 80's it was the height of the gangster fashion. But now if I saw someone wearing a white tux, with a red shirt, unbuttoned half way down with a gold chain, I would assume that they got lost somewhere on the way to a reunion ABBA concert. Not to mention the beach scenes with spandex. Those are always a fun clothing accessory. So in conclusion I think Scarface is a phenomenal film, I just think that its hard to take it seriously now.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0086250/

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=386922
(this is a fake profile of someone acting like Tony)

Oh to be young again....

32.7 Degrees in the Morning AKA Betty Blue (1986) is a beautiful film about love and how far it can go. Zorg (Jean-Hugues Anglade) is a 30 year old handyman who lives in a shack along the French coast. He is a writer as we later find out and really aspires to be nothing. But then Betty (Beatrice Dalle) walks through his door and his life changes completely.

Betty is 19, wild and free. She sees a lifetime of love with Zorg and wants him to become a worthwhile man. Unfortunately she seems to suffer from a borderline personality that is a ticking time bomb. The couple move to several places around France and revel the joys that life brings them. But Betty wants Zorg's book to be published and Zorg realizes that no matter what he does, Betty will never be happy. The miscarriage of their child tips Betty over the edge. In the end Zorg realizes what he must do.

The movie is 185 minutes long and I never found myself wanting it to be over. The beautiful scenery of the ocean, small villages, and the French countryside only made it harder for me to look away. Wonderful characters adorn this film by way of the wonderful elderly couple who live next door, to Betty's friend Lisa and her over the top boyfriend, Eddie. The film draws you into Betty and Zorg's life and their passionate moments together. The characters are believable and you feel as if you are right there with them.

Wonderful imagery, soundtrack and acting. I would recommend this movie.
www.imdb.com

"Man has made his match...now it's his problem"

It's 2016, Los Angeles, and your job is to hunt down replicants because they aren't human. In fact, you aren't quite sure if you are even human. In Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, there is a fine line between reality and fiction as well as night and day. Decker, played by Harrison Ford, is on the hunt for 6 escaped "replicants". He is a very lucky man indeed, for he drinks like a fish, doesn't get many clues, gets beat to crap everyday, and yet, gets the job done.

I understand that in 1982 this film could be viewed as somewhat futuristic but I just can't buy the whole package. Why is everything so square in the future? Square liquor bottles, square drinking glasses, square flying cars, as well massive square buildings. I would think by 2016 we would have moved forward at least architecturally. Good thing we have the technology to manufacture replicants to take care of us humans in 2016! It seems that in the city of LA here on earth, there is a massive poplulation of Asian people and the only employer in town is the Tyrell Corporation which looms high above the city. This would explain why there isn't any sun in the city and possibly all that rain! Those poor actors!

The replicant Rachel (Sean Young) wrestles with the question of if she is in fact "more human than human" or just a bucket of bolts. She of course gets involved with Decker and he, in turn, questions reality himself. The "bad" replicants come back to earth, try to find their leader, Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), and while possessing supernatural strength, aren't very smart when it comes to guns and bullets. Batty is in love with Pris (Daryl Hannah) who is quite the acrobat and needs to lay off the eyeliner. The movies' two main characters, Batty and Decker then see themselves in each other and eventually, after a very long fight sequence, one lets go of life and one runs away to a new life.

The style of the 1940's plays a major role in this film and this style can be seen in the costumes, hair styles, set designs and all that incessant cigarette smoking!

I found this movie, its plot, and its characters unrealistic. Possibly that is the idea of the movie but I found it boring.
http://carteles.metropoliglobal.com/4planti.php?id=529
www.imdb.com