Reviews

This is just one of the most overrated films of all time. Probably because of the emotional investment so many of its fans have in it, as they saw it when they were teenagers, or, just as likely, pre-teenagers. But even older critics seemed to have suspended their judgment.

Despite having been made in, and so heavily identified with, the 80's, Breakfast Club is firmly rooted in the pop psychology movement of the late 60's/early 70's. Much of the "action" In the film consists of the eponymous "club" sitting in a circle and trying to "break down" each other's "walls" (in the parlance of the times), a trope directly lifted from the 70's pop psychology Encounter Group therapy session of the type seen in films like "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice". A lot of these scenes are right out of the rule book of the infamous Synanon House of the period, where the "encounter" style was far more aggressive, and could turn into an attack on a single person. This happens a lot in Breakfast Club, to each of the characters. Most of this psychological terror is carried out by the school bully, Bender, played by then-25-year-old Judd Nelson, who incessantly harasses most of the other kids in room, who are there involuntarily, (for detention). The only "kid" (actually a 25-year old Emilio Estevez playing a kid) to hold his own against him is Andy, "the jock". There's also "the nerd", played to the hilt by Anthony Michael Hall, and "the prom queen", played by Molly Ringwald, ( about two years away from throwing her career right down the dustbin of history ). Ally Sheedy plays "the loner".

In the weird logic of Hollywood, all of this abuse just makes the kids love Bender more. Similarly, at other points in Breakfast Club we are repeatedly expected to feel sympathy not for the victims of abuse, but for their tormentors, not only in Bender's bullying actions, but in the Estevez character's whining, self-pitying (and, I might add, seemingly endless) monologue about committing some freakishly creepy sexual abuse on some poor kid. Apparently, it really hurts to bully people. The film industry, largely made up of people with Leftist tendencies, often asks us to sympathize with bullies and criminal perps, a couple of the most egregious examples being the bleeding-heart hand wringer Dead Man Walking and the South African film Tsotsi.

The "encounter sessions" in Breakfast Club are interspersed with small, generally non-sequitir vignettes of 50's-style teen rebellion, e.g., the crazy, spontaneous dance scene, backed by a soundtrack that was already dated back in 1985. This little sequence gives the movie its biggest WTF moment, when Estevez lets out a leonine roar, and suddenly a plate glass window shatters ( It plays like some weird fusion of Heroes, Dune, and Footloose ). So disjointed is this film that it seems as if several different writers were working on different parts of the movie, and when they were done writing, they just sort of patched it all together in random order.

Worst of all is the way the film resolves itself, as, for no apparent reason, four out of the five kids pair up (guess who gets left out? Bingo! "The Nerd"! How's that for a depressing message for at least a portion of the audience in a film that fancies itself "uplifting"?) In addition, the eccentric "loner" chick is turned into a clone of the prom queen (and there's another nice message, this time for the female portion of the audience: conform, girlie)!

WARNING: BIG SPOILERS.

Floundering is an obvious attempt by its director to both make his mark on the then-burgeoning Indie scene and make a Big Statement about the World, using Los Angeles as its synecdoche. It alternates between clever, brilliant, cloying, oppressively politically correct and/or strident, and painfully sophomoric. It is fun to watch, though ultimately as much as a train wreck than anything else.

The film concerns a character named apparently named John Boy, who drifts through a series of bizarre events, Candide-style, and makes wry philosophical observations about life and the state of the political world (LA in particular, and by extension, the USA) along the way. John is an interesting, flawed character, and his interactions with the people around him reveal both the craziness of the world and John's own flaws and foibles (his narcissism, for a start). There are clever little moments, dream sequences, odd little bits that seem improvised, all in this weird mix.

At about ¾ of the way through, I still felt I was watching a pretty good, if strongly flawed, movie. But then things take a turn toward hackneyed Hollywood cliché, and probably in an attempt at parody, but, if so, it's carried out so ineptly that it's impossible to tell. Additionally, the political views of the film seem to devolve until a combination of grumblings of "revolution" and a bone-stupid subplot involving perhaps the most thinly-disguised character in film history, "Merril Fence" (for those too young to remember 1992, he's supposed to be Daryl Gates…nudge, nudge, wink, wink) pretty much swallows the film whole and craps it out, and what's left is…crap.

The film is loaded, by the way with (a) some surprising cameos (John Cusack, Ethan Hawke), (b) lots of "before-they-were-famous" appearances (Viggo Morgensen, Billy Bob Thornton), and, for obvious reasons of tribute, the film is absolutely loaded with (c) references with Alex Cox's 1980's cult masterpiece, Repo Man, from which it also borrows some of its attitude, the rest of which it cops from Spike Lee's early films and Richard Linklater's Slacker.

Floundering ends with a one-two punch of feel-good poli-cor schmaltz, followed by absolutely the worst rendition of an New Wave pop song from the 80's you have ever heard, or will ever hear, by what one can only hope is an ad hoc folk duo, whom are suddenly joined by pretty much the entire cast of the movie. They might have well have just raised a white flag reading "WTF?". Still not as bad as Troll 2.

There are movies that are so bad they're good, and then there are movies that are so bad they're crap. This would be one of the latter. Utterly devoid of a single redeeming quality (unless you count non-celebrity nudity), Anarchy TV is the unfunniest comedy ever made. And considering that cable access TV is such a haven for oddballs that this thing should write itself, that's almost something of an achievement. This atrocity aims for the broadest targets imaginable (Are ya ready? How about…televangelism!) in the most unimaginative way possible (the Fundamentalist Christian TV network is called Christian Unity Network Television; one scan of those initials will give you a taste of the level of comedy genius at work here). It is populated mainly by unknowns, or has-beens (and even they seem like they're slumming). In a characteristically brilliant scene, an assassination attempt on a main character, broadcast on the station, infuriates the viewing public so much they, in a show of solidarity, smash their TVs. Right on.

On a par with Santa Claus Conquers The Martians; it's that bad, but in that so-bad-it's-good sense. But it's charming, unlike, well, pretty much everything else in it's genre (that would be porn). Oddly enough, I think most of the cult that has grown around it take it pretty much at face value, though my enjoyment of the film was strictly that of witnessing a really mind-bending train wreck.

Like most screen adaptations of Alice In Wonderland, this is actually an adaptation of "Through The Looking Glass", Lewis Carroll's second book, only, in this case, punctuated with (a) crappy tunes and (b) pretty hot sex scenes with (c) crudely inserted hardcore clips. Whether these clips are welcome or unwelcome is entirely up to the viewer, though, strangely enough, and this really is damned odd, considering the usual demands of fans of the genre, many of the fans of this movie prefer it without the hardcore clips (This is because AIW is a "couples" porn film, and has found a unique cult audience, who like their porn on the softcore side).

Alice, in this version of the story, is a grown woman (she'd better be!), who, after spurning her grease-monkey boyfriend's advances, is confronted by The Rabbit (of "down the rabbit hole" fame), a chubby dude in one of the worst make-up jobs in the history of cinema, something that probably wouldn't cut it in a small-town little theater group. It consists of a bizarre rig on his head, which I'm pretty sure is supposed to be his ears, but it looks like some kind of medical neck brace or something. The actor's portrayal of the rabbit is bizarre, to say the least: he represents his character by making the "thumbs up" gesture for the entire duration of the film. How this says "rabbit" is beyond me. Which is to say, I've yet to be strolling around in a field or a wooded area somewhere and see a rabbit doing a Roger Ebert impersonation. At any rate, in a goofy confusion of both of Lewis Carroll's books, the March Hare leads Alice through the looking glass (!) into Wonderland, and lo-budget weirdness ensues, much of it so surreal to be almost beyond description.

I'll admit I'm no fan of show tunes, but even by my standards, these songs are painful, particularly the one sung during the Humpty Dumpty sequence. Yecch! I'm still trying to get that one out of my head! Other than the actual songs, we have a recurring musical motif which sounds suspiciously like the theme of The Gong Show, which was a top-rated cult phenomenon at the time of Alice's release. That one's pretty catchy.

On the plus side, Alice is adorable and utterly appealing, and pretty much makes you want to like the movie in spite of all this. It is to her that this crazy film owes its entire reputation. Also, the Mad Hatter is pretty amusing, in a goofy sort of way, and the whole thing certainly has a "Hey, kid, let's put on a show" quality that one can't help but be charmed by. It's that Ed Wood factor, again.

There are a couple of hot sex scenes, and the girls are gorgeous, especially for 70's porn, for which the standards were exceedingly low. And thank god that 70's-era ghoul John Holmes never rears his huge and hideous head. Then, charm would have gone right out the window.

BCTA is a smart, well-written, subtle, and at the same time, emotionally engaging satire of the 60's generation.

It begins with something perfectly symbolic of its theme: an Encounter Session (though you might want to fast-forward through the annoying 2-to-3 minute sequence of a car barreling up the Southern Cal hills to the strains of a truly obnoxious version of Handel's "Halleluiah Chorus" that precedes it; it's the film's only weak point). At this hilltop therapy facility, Bob and Carol are getting to know themselves and each other, on a very deep level, through total honesty. Part of the greatness of this movie is demonstrated in the way this scene is shot: it looks a bit like Cinema Verite, but it is in fact largely scripted film-making(with a bit of improv). It's funny, and at the same time, a little touching. The whole movie is like that.

Carol is utterly converted to what she learns in therapy, and begins spreading the word to others, including friends Ted and Alice. A lot of the movie's humor is generated by the fact that Ted and Alice, while young and trying to be "with it", are really, at heart, a little uptight. And their relationship, as one very funny, and, at the same time, tense sequence demonstrates, is just a bit strained.

The new spirit of total honesty that the characters embrace eventually leads them to some very surprising places.

This is a style of gentle satire one doesn't see currently, except maybe in documentaries. It allows you to laugh at the characters' foibles and care about them at the same time.

Troll 2, like Halloween 3, is a sequel that has nothing in common with the original but the title. In this case, the title was apparently added to capitalize on the "success" of Troll V 1.0.

While the original Troll is a surreal, twisted, good/bad sui generis quasi-masterwork of quirk, this one, which, again, bears no relation to the first film, is one of the most monumental train wrecks ever filmed.

After a really baffling prologue involving a Peter Pan lookalike, a bowl of green goo and a girl whose freckles were dotted on with a Sharpie Marker, the story shifts to a family of four. They consist of an actor who resembles Sam Waterston; his wife, who seems a little crazy; his daughter, Holly, a garden-variety 80's-style bimbo; and his son Joshua, who has regular conversations with the ghost of his grandfather, the poor man's Wilford Brimley. Holly's apparently gay boyfriend and his ambiguously gay friends (whose first act in the movie is to admire Holly's curtains; later they sleep together, semi-naked) are also along for the ride.

The movie doesn't waste any time diving right in to the ridiculous; the family goes on some kind of nonsensical "vacation" which consists of them exchanging houses (?!) with a family of complete strangers from the remote town of "Nilbog" (that, oddly enough, ain't "Troll" spelled backwards). If that premise isn't unbelievable enough for you, don't you worry, there's plenty more insanity to come, as the family eventually learns that the town is populated by goblins (not Trolls, mind you), who first feed people neon-colored cakes and cookies that somehow turn them in to vegetable matter, and then eat them. That's if they're lucky. Others less fortunate get turned into a tree, while their b***s get turned into a milkshake. Probably the best scene in the movie, by the way.

A few choice moments:

The family arrives at their exchange house to find a table full of the aforementioned garishly-colored cakes and pastries, which they don't hesitate to sit down to eat, not thinking for a minute, "hey, this is f***** up". Thanks to the longest 30 seconds in recorded history, Josh is able to rescue his family by relieving himself on the sweets! For his troubles, his ungrateful father chides him with the best line in the movie: "You can't p*** on hospitality!"

One of Holly's BF's buds sees a frightened girl running in the woods. He does what any normal guy would do, he tackles her at a full run. He then takes her to a Satanic-looking church, where Creedence (yes, that's her name), played by a woman who seems to have just strayed in from a porn film or maybe the fringes of performance art, changes the girl into mush to be eaten, and the guy into a tree, also to be eaten. We know this, because the guy helpfully tells us: "They're eating her! And then they're going to eat me! OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDD!"

Joshua's Grandpa tells Joshua, during one of their meetings, "Your mother has never taken my advice. That's why she married that good-for-nothing." (You know, your g*dd*mn father.) Later on, he pops up to helpfully hand Josh a Molotov Cocktail! Apparently Gramps served a few years in the SDS!

Holly finally delivers the ultimatum to her boyfriend for him to decide between her or his friends. She expresses this by clocking him with a stunning right cross to the jaw! This is after the scene in which she knees him in the crotch. Interesting relationship they've got going there!

Not at all surprisingly, this one ends with one of those eye-rolling, predictable, "shock" endings that were de riguer in the 80's/90's, and one loaded with glaring continuity errors! Might as well go out with a bang!

Despite the rating above, on the "so bad it's good" scale, this gets a 10! Highly recommended for fans of the perversely weird!

Not only does this movie have stock teen characters, but for the first chunk of it, it felt like I was alternating between two films ("AVP" and "90210: The Movie").

There's this weird time-compression problem (either bad scriptwriting or big chunks of the film left on the cutting-room floor - probably the latter, considering its short running time).

I've got to blame the directors for the bad acting, where it exists. That kid who watches his dad die in the beginning of the film reacts like he's watching a guy getting a haircut.

A lot of people are complaining about the violence and gore (and the propriety thereof), which are pretty extreme, but this is, after all, a horror film, and it aims to horrify, and definitely hits its target a few times. The difference here is that while the original "Alien" took the monster b-movie to the level of an A-list film, this one has decidedly gone full circle to the grindhouse. Whether that's a bad thing is entirely up to the viewer, of course. On The "Predator" side of the equation, "AVP" hasn't forgotten the action-movie roots of that film; one confrontation in the sewers is pretty well-done.

An ongoing failure of logic pervades the film, as well as the apparent ignorance or disregard for series mythology. A fine example of both is in the already infamous maternity ward scene: What kind of animal has its reproductive system in its mouth...besides the Linda Lovelace character in "Deep Throat", that is? It also appears (I'll admit the scene flashes by in an instant, so I may well have misconstrued what I saw), that the alien young pop out of the woman's womb, which basic Biology 101 will tell you, ain't connected to the mouth.

The Predator has an endless magical supply of glowing blue acid, which he has about a half-pint of, but which never runs out, despite the fact that at one point he uses enough of it to dissolve the entire contents of a swimming pool! The Predator's behavior is completely inconsistent in terms of both logic or motive (he vaporizes evidence, as if desperate to cover up Predator/Alien presence on Earth, yet leaves a guy, hanging and skinned, for no discernible reason).

To top it off, most of the action scenes are incomprehensibly dark and jiggly, even by the standards of current cinema. Which is saying something. A couple of them work, including the aforementioned sewer business.

There is a huge sort of WTF shrug at the near-end of the film, followed by a painful "here comes the next sequel" setup.