well, what the title here says, really. i had a most unusual amount of quasi free time at my disposal, so i spent it watching some films what i had very much seen before, look you see. that makes this just a trifle slightly different from the last time i gone done a post of this nature, which was this one.
as to just why i would watch films seen before when there are a fair few that i have not (as yet) seen that wish to, well. there's a kind of, if you will forgive the American terminology, a security blanket sort of thing, isn't there? beyond being curious to see if one (or maybe two) of these were as i remembered, putting on something to watch that you know what you shall see is kind of relaxing. i guess that's why some have looked at this idea of 'spoilers' and determined that, for many, knowing what will happen tends to increase the enjoyment of something. sounds strange and peculiar, but there you go.
provenance of my procured items seems to be a thing of interest for some. very well. i picked this up off of one of my favourite tape (and disc) stalls down the market. rather fond memories of seeing the film, on (actual) video in the 80s came to mind when i noticed this on offer. quite likely that i spent £2 to rent it back then, so the same price to own the tape (disc) seemed very reasonable indeed.
plot? Chuck Norris is a no-nonsense cop who finds himself at war with two rival drug gangs who (hence the rival bit) are also at war with each other. making Chuck's plight with this somewhat difficult is that he is presently subject to a "code of silence", meaning his fellow members of the constabulary, or whatever they call the police in America, will not come to assist him. this is down to him refusing to "stand by" or support a generally inefficient and not at all good copper who had just recently shot an innocent teen. so, it's Chuck vs some particularly nasty people, including Henry Silva, that are well armed and very angry. would you care to guess who wins.
this was made long before Chuck became a curious archetype for all things of limitless strength and immortality on the internet. perhaps films such as this one helped cultivate this retrospective position, and why not. it is quite class how, in this film and in others, the simplest and most gentle of kicks to the head off of Chuck can reduce one to eternal nothingness.
whilst no, it was not so that Code Of Silence seemed as amazing and impressive to me now as it did to 13 or 14 year old me, renting a tape of it that i probably shouldn't have been allowed to, yes it was still a decent 90 minute watch. not sure if it's censored or what have you, knowing the BBFC quite likely that it is. oh well, it was still well paced with action, rather well written and featured some fine acting performances, contextually at the least.
i would suspect that "new" audiences to this film today come to it informed by the caricature which Chuck has morphed into. this, presumably, means that anyone watching it for the first time now would be doing so with eyes governed by the modern understanding of the word "ironic". a shame, really, as if one took this, Delta Force and maybe (at a push) Invasion USA, you would wonder why, in the UK at the least, Chuck wasn't up there as a Grade A star with Sylvester and Arnold.
so what's the deal here? ostensibly it's a direct parody, or if you will rift, on the Lethal Weapon films, but also other mismatched cop buddies films off of the 80s, and more. not sure if it comes within the realm of being spoilers, but you would very much have had to seen Basic Instinct and the incredible the silence of the lambs to "get" or catch some of the jokes. which happily remain rather funny to this day, some thirty (blimey) or so (!!) years on.
getting provenance out of the way for you would be to say (or write) that i picked it up at a charity shop, i think for if not 50p then 20p. something of an impulsive nostalgia purchase, for i fondly recalled how a bunch of us at university went to see it at my insistence, which such based purely on Denis Leary being in it. he is, for about two minutes. somehow i had forgotten two greats were in it, namely Tim Curry and William Shatner.
perhaps, or possibly, it was from sheer nostalgia, but this remained as funny as i recalled. not exactly in the league of, say, Airplane or Top Secret, but all the same, a right good laugh. just the standard version what i remember seeing here, as this film infamously has different versions of it. i would, one day, like to find the version what has the Christopher Lambert scene, but maybe i will just look for a video of that bit on the internet. meanwhile, anyone hankering for some 90s nostalgia that is south of 80 minutes could likely do worse than have a gander.
from what i recall i picked this up as part of a "3 for £2" off of my preferred tape (disc) vendor down the market. which would prompt a question of why it wasn't already in my collection. true, i have been tempted by the fancy video (blu ray disc) version of it, but, well, didn't ever bother. no quarrel at all with the price i got it for, so there.
plot? two dorky, nerdy teenagers (with wealthy parents, as was always so with this kind of film) are bored and apparently destined to die virgins, so they create the perfect lady off of their computer. some mayhem ensues.
no, i have no intention of going through the various reasons as to why it's somewhat unlikely a direct remake of this would get made today. let us instead concentrate on the quite class stuff. for starters, the soundtrack. whilst some films had one or two decent tunes, i think it was (of the 80s) only this that had absolutely quite class quality tunes all over it. well, this and Ferris Bueller's Day Off of course. then there's the computer what they used to make Kelly le Brock on, a black Commodore 64. it looked amazing, man. probably just a regular one what they painted, but we imagined that the kids of America could get something that cool. certainly not least, but last for this paragraph the brilliant Vernon Wells is in it.
i would suspect a few in this modern world i don't understand have gone and 'discovered' this one on the basis of a certain Robert Downey (no jnr on the credits) featuring. yes, it is he, and he is just as excellent here as he has been throughout all of his career. overall, the overt and in particular the hidden comedy moments here are just as funny as i recall. you know what, i may well go ahead and upgrade this to a fancy tape (blu ray disc) version, it is quite class.
a warning for you. the transfer of this film on this version, which as far as i can tell was done by someone called High Fliers Films in 2014 (nearly 10 years ago!) is awful. quite a disappointing mess. this plagues a few blu ray releases, i believe. sadly i am not technical, but there are some points where the tape (disc) is unwatchable, as the colour scheme goes, scenes are "over saturated" or what have you, and it looks worse than a bootleg (actual) video. my old (actual) video of the film felt like it had a way better picture. so no, there is absolutely no chance of me "upgrading" to whatever they reckon this 4K "ultra" business is, thanks.
how to describe this film? absolutely no idea. neither did them what had the job of trying to market it back in the 80s, to be fair. you can see that in the baffling trailer included on the disc. hence it being a financial failure on release. sure it's developed a "cult" following over the years via home video, but due to the nature of the film it's not exactly one that people would rush to watch for fun.
now its (or (it's) dark is the refrain of Frank Booth (the brilliant Dennis Hopper) in the film, and that's probably the best description you will get. it is an horrific, brutal, dark film, which tests any audience on what they can tolerate watching. the simplified description is normally "the dark underbelly to regular American suburbia", which kind of works. it's a film to put on if you wish to feel genuinely uncomfortable and see how far you can push that, even well north of 30 years on.
one frequent conversation about film is who is the most evil, demented, dangerous villain ever to appear on screen. a usual winner would be Hannibal Lecter, which is difficult to argue with. unless, that is, you have witnessed Frank Booth. if i had to choose the most evil of all time it's Frank. with Hannibal you have a 50-50 chance, for if you don't upset him or give him reason to believe the world would be better without you he would likely leave you alone. not Frank, not at all.
despite my disappointment with the quality of the actual film, the 50 or so minutes of "lost" footage, presented on a separate disc, were well worth it. normally, usually, deleted scenes are cut with reason. here it's astonishing to see how different the film could have been, with ostensible protagonist Jeffrey, played by Kyle MacLachlan, being even more of an anti-hero than in the released version. indeed, Kyle fans, as with Showgirls from the last film post, he does indeed show off his bum in this one. and other bits, if that takes your interest.
right, well, that's that. of these four, it is the last (or latter) two i am likely to watch again. but i suspect some research needed and a much more better copy of Blue Velvet will be procured.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment