Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:34 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
May 20, 2009: "1985" 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3212
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post May 20, 2009: "1985"
Click here to read topic.


Wed May 20, 2009 10:59 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Thanks for this autobiographical series. It always makes me think of what I was doing that year. Extremely well written.


Wed May 20, 2009 11:50 am
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
I would have liked to have seen you review "Commando" since it's a popular Schwarzenegger film. Sure, it's a silly, brainless action film, but it's enjoyable in a guilty-pleasure sort of way. I can always count on some brainless fun from "Commando" if I feel like turning off my intelect when watching a movie.

Some friends and I have had a debate on who was the better movie soldier and had the higher body count in 1985. The contenders were Schwarzenegger's John Matrix from "Commando" and Stallone's John Rambo from "First Blood: Part II". I think Stallone's Rambo had the higher body count in his film and had more military decorations than Schwarzenegger's character.


Wed May 20, 2009 12:21 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
ck100 wrote:
I would have liked to have seen you review "Commando" since it's a popular Schwarzenegger film. Sure, it's a silly, brainless action film, but it's enjoyable in a guilty-pleasure sort of way. I can always count on some brainless fun from "Commando" if I feel like turning off my intelect when watching a movie.

Some friends and I have had a debate on who was the better movie soldier and had the higher body count in 1985. The contenders were Schwarzenegger's John Matrix from "Commando" and Stallone's John Rambo from "First Blood: Part II". I think Stallone's Rambo had the higher body count in his film and had more military decorations than Schwarzenegger's character.


You insane? It's obvious that John Matrix killed more guys(88) than Rambo did in Rambo II(69). But I'm sure that Rambo does have more decorations...I don't think Matrix's were mentioned at all. Of course neither men has a much decoration as Casey Ryback, including medals so secret he can't show anyone.


Wed May 20, 2009 1:08 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
CASEY RYBACK IS ON THAT PLANE/TRAIN/SUBMARINE/BOAT/LIMOUSINE/ASSORTED MOVING AND HIJACKABLE VEHICLE!???!!

Ok then, everything is fine. :-)

Great series. I must concede I would have enjoyed a Commando review too.


Wed May 20, 2009 1:29 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
derek wrote:
CASEY RYBACK IS ON THAT PLANE/TRAIN/SUBMARINE/BOAT/LIMOUSINE/ASSORTED MOVING AND HIJACKABLE VEHICLE!???!!

Ok then, everything is fine. :-)

Great series. I must concede I would have enjoyed a Commando review too.


As would I; I would have enjoyed reading him rip that movie a new asshole! Ha, ha, ha! I'm surprised that he didn't like Goonies though. That's another childhood fav of mine!


Wed May 20, 2009 1:42 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Patrick wrote:
ck100 wrote:
I would have liked to have seen you review "Commando" since it's a popular Schwarzenegger film. Sure, it's a silly, brainless action film, but it's enjoyable in a guilty-pleasure sort of way. I can always count on some brainless fun from "Commando" if I feel like turning off my intelect when watching a movie.

Some friends and I have had a debate on who was the better movie soldier and had the higher body count in 1985. The contenders were Schwarzenegger's John Matrix from "Commando" and Stallone's John Rambo from "First Blood: Part II". I think Stallone's Rambo had the higher body count in his film and had more military decorations than Schwarzenegger's character.


You insane? It's obvious that John Matrix killed more guys(88) than Rambo did in Rambo II(69). But I'm sure that Rambo does have more decorations...I don't think Matrix's were mentioned at all. Of course neither men has a much decoration as Casey Ryback, including medals so secret he can't show anyone.


According to IMDB.com:

Commando body count - 81

First Blood: Part II body count - 67

Looks like you're correct. "Commando" does have the higher body count. I could have sworn I read something about "First Blood: Part II" having a record body count during the time it was released or something. But of course maybe I'm just thinking about how that movie is parodied in terms of body count in "Hot Shots: Part Deux." :D

You're also right about Rambo having more decorations than Matrix. Matrix never has any mentioned while Rambo has the the following:

from IMDB.com - Rambo's stats, as given in the film: "Rambo, John J., born 7/6/47 Bowie, Arizona of Indian-German descent. Joined army 8/6/64. Accepted, Special Forces specialization, light weapons, cross-trained as medic. Helicopter and language qualified, 59 confirmed kills, two Silver Stars, four Bronze, four Purple Hearts, Distinguished Service Cross, Congressional Medal of Honor."


Wed May 20, 2009 1:53 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
I got 88 Arnold kills in Commando from IMDB....huh.


Wed May 20, 2009 3:23 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Patrick wrote:
I got 88 Arnold kills in Commando from IMDB....huh.


It says 81 right here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088944/trivia


Wed May 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
And that's where the same page I saw the 88 figure! It was obviously updated since I saw it last.


Wed May 20, 2009 4:59 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Patrick wrote:
And that's where the same page I saw the 88 figure! It was obviously updated since I saw it last.


Well it's obvious Matrix and Rambo have a relaxed attitude toward the sixth commandment. :D


Wed May 20, 2009 5:20 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
A View To A Kill...God, that's got to be the worst Bond movie ever made.

One of my earliest memories as a human being is watching "Back to the Future" for the first time on VCR. I'm not sure how old I was (nor do I remember when the movie actually came out on tape). I remember being enthralled by the movie's climax...it was funny to go back and watch it again, when it's not really that impressive by today's standards.

I've never seen "Goonies" all the way through. All I remember as a kid is trying to watch it on TV but being scared to death by the deformed guy.


Wed May 20, 2009 6:30 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
I never understood the love for Goonies, I can understand liking it which I do but I can't even fathom why people just love this, I really can't.


Wed May 20, 2009 6:40 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Patrick wrote:
I never understood the love for Goonies, I can understand liking it which I do but I can't even fathom why people just love this, I really can't.


That's probably just nostalgia more than anything else.


Wed May 20, 2009 8:14 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Patrick wrote:
I never understood the love for Goonies, I can understand liking it which I do but I can't even fathom why people just love this, I really can't.


It's a lot more fun when your that age in which you can fantasize about pirate ships and treasure hunts.


Wed May 20, 2009 10:45 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Well I was in high school when I saw Goonies so maybe that's my problem, but I still think people are silly for loving it that much with or without nostalgia filters.


Wed May 20, 2009 10:55 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
The change to New Coke was not a marketing debacle, it was a huge success. The reason they pulled old Coke off the market for a few months was so that they could substitute (cheaper) corn syrup for sugar with no one being the wiser. New Coke was just a ruse.


Thu May 21, 2009 9:14 am
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3212
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Shatterhand wrote:
The change to New Coke was not a marketing debacle, it was a huge success. The reason they pulled old Coke off the market for a few months was so that they could substitute (cheaper) corn syrup for sugar with no one being the wiser. New Coke was just a ruse.


Ah - we have a conspiracy theorist amongst us!


Thu May 21, 2009 3:30 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
Still waiting for a year where I was alive. Just two more to go...


Thu May 21, 2009 4:54 pm
Post Re: May 20, 2009: "1985"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Shatterhand wrote:
The change to New Coke was not a marketing debacle, it was a huge success. The reason they pulled old Coke off the market for a few months was so that they could substitute (cheaper) corn syrup for sugar with no one being the wiser. New Coke was just a ruse.


Ah - we have a conspiracy theorist amongst us!


The other thing to note about New Coke was that it originally succeeded. Most people liked it, outside Atlanta, admitting it tasted more like Pepsi (Coke had trouble competing with Pepsi's sweeter flavors) ... but Coke purists, vocal around the area Coke was born, made a big deal about the taste differences and a form of "social peer pressure" took over. It happened incredibly fast, and Coke hadn't read the signs that it would happen (taste tests in which most liked it initially and then one or two vocal people eventually changed their mind 12 Angry Men style). So within those couple months, the idea became that New Coke was horrible. The telling thing is that New Coke was on the market as Coke II until at least 1999 or 2000 in many US and global markets, and it remains available and popular in some overseas areas. But perception is alterable based on what happens around us ;) Kind of like how James describes seeing Commando as an experience improved by an appreciating audience.

BTW, if anyone wants to see the Crispin Glover interview on Letterman that James mentions, I found it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALapHYNSmoA

Regarding that clip, here's what I found about it on Wikipedia:

Quote:
Glover is often remembered for his appearance on Late Night with David Letterman[8] on July 28, 1987, to promote his movie River's Edge.[9] Unbeknownst to Letterman and the audience, who didn't recognize the character from the as yet unreleased film, Rubin and Ed, Glover appeared in character as the titular Rubin, wearing his costume from the film (platform shoes and a wig) and staged an Andy Kaufman-like shtick. After being goaded by a woman in the audience (who some argue had been planted),[10] Glover became incensed and stated that he "knew that this was gonna happen" and that "the press, they can do things, they can twist things around". After a failed attempt to challenge Letterman to an arm-wrestling match, Glover delivered an impromptu karate kick just inches from Letterman's face while shouting, "I'm strong... I can kick!".[11] Letterman then abruptly ended the segment by walking off stage, saying "I'm going to check on the Top 10", and the program cut to commercial. The studio audience and Letterman himself were apparently shocked by Glover's behavior and assumed he was being himself.

The subsequent confusion and controversy surrounding his appearance was compounded by the fact that Rubin and Ed was not actually released until 1991 (although it had been in development since before Back to the Future — Crispin had actually already devised the character's "look" by 1985).[12] Almost no-one, apparently including Letterman, understood what Glover was doing and the interview became the hallmark of the "weird" TV guest. Most people still are unaware that it was a performance.

Glover returned to the Letterman show two-and-a-half years later for a much more normal interview, although he refused to answer straight forward questions about his previous appearance. To this day, speculation remains on whether or not Glover's appearance on the show was simply a staged performance, or if Glover's behavior was genuine (Glover has mentioned in interviews that there were rumors that he was either suffering from mental illness or had taken a hit of LSD prior to walking out on stage).

But Glover has consistently refused to go into detail about the reasons for his behavior, other than to mention that he's flattered that fans are still speculating on the performance over 20 years later. Glover has also mentioned that his performance was an artistic one, and that he prefers there to be an "aura of mystery" about the appearance.


Thu May 21, 2009 11:01 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr