Change Your Image
moxie-7
Reviews
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984)
Cult movie or seminal?
There are, and always will be, differences of opinion about every movie. After reading the existing comments on this one I decided that one of the things causing those differences is the question of how many movies you've seen. I grew up in the 40s of the last century so I've seen an awful lot of movies. Maybe for that reason or maybe just because I'm a wacko, I tend to judge every movie at least partly for its relation to all the other movies I've seen.
Take "Buckaroo," for example. It came out in 1984 containing some elements suggested by "Dr. Strangelove" (1964) and "Superman II" (1980).On the other hand, its driving force shows up again in "Men In Black" (1997). "Sneakers" (1992) shamelessly copies one of its principal sets, the background of one of the characters, its technological McGuffin and one scene right down to the dialog. One line by John Bigboote is hilariously adapted in every single episode of the BBC comedy series "Keeping Up Appearances." Top that, "Citizen Kane!"
Michael (1996)
A lot depends on your point of view.
I have done a lot of international travel, both on business and as a tourist. For both types I assure you the best advice is also the oldest: Always drink the wine of the country. In this movie the archangel Michael comes to Earth on business, wraps it up quickly and decides to hang around for a little touring. Boy! Does he "drink the wine of the country."
Could man be drunk forever with liquor, love and fights
He'd lief rise up of mornings and lief lie down of nights.
These are things you can't do in Heaven so he enjoys them while he's here! Of course it turns out he had a couple of other jobs to tackle and, if he is less direct about them than he was about the first one, he is just as successful. The final scene is a little schmaltzy but it is also wonderful. Jean Stapleton gets to dance with John Travolta.
The Bitter Tea of General Yen (1932)
East Does Not Meet West
First of all, since so many of the prior comments contain factual errors - for example, the movie was NOT low budget; it was the most expensive movie Columbia had made up 'til then and even the IMDb cast list misspells Dr, Strike's name - I think I should apologize in advance for any I make. I have taken reasonable precautions: I read the novel and Capra's discussion of the movie in his autobiography and watched the movie again last night. Still, I am as error prone as the next man.
Secondly, since I completely disagree with the view expressed by most prior posters that this movie is about an inter-racial love affair, I should explain a few things. Most of the members of my family are married to members of another race and all of us were educated and have lived abroad so I may have missed an intended point. Too, my own experiences in Viet Nam may have warped my world view. Still, I see the picture as being about cultures rather than individuals.
To me the people represent their cultures - Megan the tough, determined yankee, Dr. Strike the idealistic missionary, Jones the hard nosed, eye on the bottom line, money grubber and Yen the sophisticated but ultimately undecipherable oriental. If I'm right, it's important that there are three Americans but only one Chinese. The movie presents a narrow view of an alien culture in order to see how that affects a more rounded view of America.
I could be wrong since my view is, to some extent, shaped by the novel and the movie, as is usual in these matters, differs significantly in its story line. If I'm right, however, it remains an important movie that says something important about the modern world. It can be seen as a warning against the ill informed interventionist policies that led to military disasters in Viet Nam, Somalia and Iraq.
In support of that view note that General Yen's first three lines are spoken in three different languages while Dr. Strike does not speak a single Chinese language. Note that while Megan is aghast at the thought of General Yen keeping a concubine, she accepts and connives at the girl's illicit affair with Captain Li. Note that the hard nosed Jones (his favorite line is, "Well, it's no skin off my nose.") ends up maudlin drunk. Note that the idealistic Dr. Strike disappears into unmourned insignificance. A warning for America's neo-cons? Naaah. After all, Yen is utterly destroyed.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
The Second Law of thermodynamics at work
"Star Wars", (the original 1977 version) was, in my opinion, one of the truly great movies of all time. Later versions and sequels have been of ... oh, let's say "declining quality." They have reached their nadir with "Revenge of the Sith." This episode is a distressing illustration of the second law of thermodynamics, the mathematical expression of the tendency of all things in nature to run down, wear out or just plain go to hell. I could be wrong, but it seems to me this is due to the enormous freedom granted by advances in computer graphics. That ability has been substituted for the simple - but vast - imagination that drove the original. Compare the opening scenes of "Star Wars" and "Sith" and you'll see what I mean. They perfectly illustrate the falsity of the dictum, "If some is good, more is better."
Man-Eater of Kumaon (1948)
The best version of Frankenstein ever put on film.
Back in the 30's and 40's of the last century, Jim Corbett held the place in the popular imagination later taken up by Jacques Cousteau: an adventurer and passionate crusader for conservation. His books were enormous best sellers so it was inevitable that one would be bought for the movies. "The Man Eaters [note the plural] of Kumaon" described every tiger he had seen or heard of who attacked a human being. In every case he found that the beast was sick or wounded and only killed humans because he was unable to hunt wild game. You may think it a lame effort to exonerate dangerous animals but keep an open mind and then try to figure out how to make such a book into a movie. There might be other ways but this one works marvelously.
A man (an American doctor) shoots at a tiger just as night is falling. He knows he has hit but when he reaches the spot where the tiger lurked he finds one severed toe and a trail of blood. Out of cowardice (the sun is setting)or carelessness (what the hell, it's only a tiger) he abandons the wounded creature to its fate. That's the first two minutes of the movie, in case you miss it.
From here on, while sticking rigorously to Corbett's thesis, the movie utterly abandons his narrative and follows almost exactly the storyline of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein." If the movie is not more believable than her book, it is at least easier to understand. The monster has to kill to stay alive and isn't it right,just, even necessary, that it seek out the man who made it a monster? Especially in light of modern ideas about hunting in general and tigers in particular, this version is a lot easier to swallow than Shelley's Man vs. God allegory. I'll go so far as to say that the final scene is so right, so perfectly right, that Shelley would have used it in her book if she had thought of it.
Man-Eater of Kumaon (1948)
The best version of Frankenstein ever put on film.
Back in the 30's and 40's of the last century, Jim Corbett held the place in the popular imagination later taken up by Jacques Cousteau: an adventurer and passionate crusader for conservation. His books were enormous best sellers so it was inevitable that one would be bought for the movies. "The Man Eaters [note the plural] of Kumaon" described every tiger he had seen or heard of who attacked a human being. In every case he found that the beast was sick or wounded and only killed humans because he was unable to hunt wild game. You may think it a lame effort to exonerate dangerous animals but keep an open mind and then try to figure out how to make such a book into a movie. There might be other ways but this one works marvelously.
A man (an American doctor) shoots at a tiger just as night is falling. He knows he has hit but when he reaches the spot where the tiger lurked he finds one severed toe and a trail of blood. Out of cowardice (the sun is setting)or carelessness (what the hell, it's only a tiger) he abandons the wounded creature to its fate. That's the first two minutes of the movie, in case you miss it.
From here on, while sticking rigorously to Corbett's thesis, the movie utterly abandons his narrative and follows almost exactly the storyline of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein." If the movie is not more believable than her book, it is at least easier to understand. The monster has to kill to stay alive and isn't it right,just, even necessary, that it seek out the man who made it a monster? Especially in light of modern ideas about hunting in general and tigers in particular, this version is a lot easier to swallow than Shelley's Man vs. God allegory. I'll go so far as to say that the final scene is so right, so perfectly right, that Shelley would have used it in her book if she had thought of it.