1985 was the WORST Year for Movies - Part Six

I know there's going to be a few movies in this series that many of you won't agree with. And I'm fine with that. After all, if we all agreed on every topic and liked the same thing, then Carrot Top would be President.

Just go with me on that one, I'm making a point.

Understand, however, that there's a lot of pain and anger towards the product here as well. This IS 1985 we're talking about after all, and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that this was not only a year of pain and misery but also one where many different things were tried and also failed miserably.

It just so happens that many of the new things that were tried were filmed and shown at your local theater.

There's nothing unreasonable about that at all - it's just the truth.

So, fellow scarred children of the Eighties, join me as we trudge bravely through the boulevard of broken dreams and review some more choice agony of a painful year. As random as it ever was....

TURK 182!

So, instead of another Porky's sequel, Bob Clark did a film about fighting bureaucracy. He should have stuck with Pee Wee. Kim Cattrall and Edward Winter show up from past Porky's installments, but then so does Tim Hutton, Peter Boyle and Robert Culp, too! None of whom do anything for themselves but incriminate by association. They try to be heroic and make a statement, but the only statement made by Turk 182! is "duhhhh...".






YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES

A lot of talent went into this movie; Barry Levinson directed, Chris Columbus wrote, Steven Spielberg produced, Industrial Light and Magic provided an impressive effect of a stained glass window coming to life...but everything else was so cobbled together out of bits and pieces of story lines that worked in other movies and so thoroughly trashed the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the entire affair has been all but forgotten. Do YOU remember Sherlock Holmes meeting John Watson in an English boarding school? Didn't think so....





GHOULIES

What's worse than a ripoff of a successful movie? A ripoff of a successful movie done by ripoff artists whom have never watched the successful movie they were ripping off before making their own ripoff. Ghoulies deals with people who resurrect a vengeful warlock in a castle somewhere...and a by-product is that these little rubbery creatures pop up from behind props and wiggle around. I don't even think any of the cast members react to any of these Ghoulies at any time. I'd say this was a waste of resources, but I don't think very many resources were used in making this one.





AMERICAN FLYERS

Oh good; a sequel to Breaking Away - only it has nothing to do with Breaking Away, doesn't have any of the first movie's characters (or actors for that matter) in it, it's set in the middle of the desert and it sucks. This was also the year that Kevin Costner made it big thanks to Silverado, but if this was all he had to hitch his star to, he'd only be best-remembered as the best fry cook that Denny's ever had. Is it me or were Quest for Fire and Commando (another 1985 anomaly) the only good movies Rae Dawn Chong's ever been in?





INTO THE NIGHT

I know, I know: John Landis is a funny director guy. On one hand, Animal House. On the other, The Stupids. Back on the first hand, though, Trading Places. Returning to the other hand however, THIS movie. To be honest, I don't really even remember what the movie was about, save that it had Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Pfeiffer in it. And they were running. And Landis plays one of a quartet of Iranian hitmen after them. And lots of people die. Ha-ha? The Blues Brothers may have been as chaotic but there was a good story and lots of good music in that one. And while a good actor, Jeff Goldblum can only carry so much of a movie. Poor guy....




ONE MAGIC CHRISTMAS

This has to be one the most depressing damned movies I've ever seen in my life - AND IT'S A CHRISTMAS MOVIE! Mary Steenburgen has never been more put-upon in a movie before or since, even when she played Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings in 1983's Cross Creek. Hey, I'm all for slice-of-life films, but not ones where the slices are all of a rotten, maggot-riddled pie filled with black splotches and green mold...and there's only one very small piece of good fruit in the whole thing! Max Ophuls was more upbeat than these guys! And it's a Disney film - boy, they were on a roll in 1985, weren't they?





DUNGEONMASTER

When it takes seven directors and eight writers to make a movie that isn't even 80 minutes long, you not only have a lot of trouble right off the bat, but a pretty good candidate for Worst Concept Ever For A Movie since Marion Davies stepped under the klieg lights. And when the whole idea centers around a computer nerd learning that his girlfriend is more important than his PC, you could have saved the producers a lot of money by just having Charles Band come to your house to slap you in the face. Same results.






VOLUNTEERS

What? Tom Hanks was in bad movies? Worse than Every Time We Say Goodbye? Worse than The Money Pit? Worse than The 'Burbs? Well, let's not get carried away, but Volunteers doesn't do anyone any favors with Hanks as a rich snob who joins the Peace Corps to get away from gambling debts. Not even Gedde Watanabe and John Candy help matters, nor does Tim Thomerson, the Grand Old Man of B-Movies. This is where Hanks met future wife Rita Wilson, and we all know how well on-set romances effect the final product; just look at Taylor and Burton's Cleopatra....





PRIVATE RESORT

Pre-fame Johnny Depp and Rob Morrow in a stupid beach sex comedy? Yep, and they also brought along Andrew Dice Clay, Hector Elizondo and Dody Goodman, none of whom do anything worth the extra effort of having Andrew Dice Clay, Hector Elizondo or Dody Goodman in front of the camera. Geez, when you have to count on Andrew Dice Clay to get laughs in a comedy....








STITCHES

Well, when you look at all the comedies that were made in the Eighties, there are bound to be a few of them that rip on other more successful themes. But since 1985 already had Bad Medicine for the Police Academy-in-a-hospital idea, all that Stitches could do was get the token Asian Stereotype Guy from the Police Academy movies. Then throw in Parker Stevenson, Eddie Albert and The Unknown Comic WITHOUT his paper bag. Oh, and some of the unfunniest gags, jokes and situations in a movie posing as a medical comedy since...well, since Bad Medicine. You'd get more laughs having an emergency appendectomy.



Come on, tell me you can argue with these. Yeah, just come on and try - they couldn't stink worse if they were made of limburger.

Join me again next time when we tackle FOUR of the worst sequels ever, the biggest lump of coal ever mined and a sports romance that had nothing to do with neither.

Dope out.

- TGWD

The Best of Johnny Depp

Having recently seen Johnny Depp in "Public Enemies", I got thinking about which are the best characters he's played over the years. Here are the ones that I thought he shined the brightest in:

5. Sweeney Todd

No only does Depp have to pull off playing a Brit, but he has to sing in this movie as well -- a lot of singing, actually. For someone who isn't as gifted as maybe a Hugh Jackman when it comes to this sort of thing, Depp easily earns an 'E' for effort when it comes to this creepy performance.


4. Willy Wonka

While it's not the best movie, Depp puts his own spin on Wonka that is quite compelling. There's no doubt that Michael Jackson was, at least in part, an influence on how he tackled this role. There are just too many similarities in appearance, speech, circumstance and life-story. Regardless, Depp carries the movie on his back and keeps you interested the entire way.


3. John Wilmot, The Earl of Rochester

Unless you've seen "The Libertine" on cable, it's likely that you probably haven't witnessed Depp in this role. John Wilmot is not more than a stone's throw away from Depp's infamous Jack Sparrow character, but he's even more arrogant and self-interested than Captain Jack. Actually, in some ways, Wilmot's lifestyle is probably more pirate-like than Disney allows Jack Sparrow to be.


My favorite scene in "The Libertine" is when Wilmot and his wife are posed while being painted for a portrait. Wilmot looks out the window and expresses interest in having a trained street monkey in their portrait as well. His wife then storms out of the room infuriated by the notion. As we later see, the finished painting only features Wilmot and the monkey...


2. Raoul Duke

I HATED this movie the first time I saw "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". I can stress how much I disliked it. However, in the last year, it's been sporatically on HBO and I've reaquainted and made peace with it. In the process, I also realized that Depp is fantasic in this role as the half-cocked, paranoid goofball based on Hunter S. Thompson.


And number one...

1. Captain Jack Sparrow

None of Depp's other characters come close to being as impressive as Captain Jack. As great as Depp has been in his variety of roles, he created an iconic character out of his own very talents. So many lead characters are well-defined before an actor is even casted, but Depp molded this character from his own idea of who he should be -- a combination of Keith Richards and Pepé Le Pew. The result was pure magic.


I am quite looking forward to seeing Johnny Depp's next endeavour where he plays one of the many oddball characters who reside in the upside down world of Wonderland. Depp will portray the Mad Hatter.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

What constitutes a bad dream?

And I'm not asking in literal terms here, merely in filmic ones. Everyone's idea of a bad dream varies; what is scary to you may not be scary to another (getting caught in public with no pants is far different than being chased by creatures you cannot see). But putting these ideas to film to symbolize the tortured mind of a dreamer is touchy If it doesn't make the viewer scream out, then it'll most likely make them laugh.

So was the problem faced by Wes Craven when it came to A Nightmare On Elm Street; in a movie with "nightmare" in the title, he'd have to make sure this was stuff that would indeed give you bad dreams after seeing it. He succeeded, but the main reason is not in the storytelling nor in the artistry of directing itself (more on that later).

The plot, as anyone who grew up in the '80s can no doubt recite to you, is basic enough: the teenagers on Elm Street have been having horrible nightmares lately, all of them centering around steamy basements, dark alleyways, impenetrable shadows and a cackling boogeyman with razors for fingers. After the death of some of her friends, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) discovers the truth behind the horror of the child-killing beast known as Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) and why the parents of Elm Street, her father (John Saxon) included, have kept it a secret all these years.

By that synopsis, you wouldn't expect anything spectacular...especially if you were familiar with the likes of Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers. After all, we're talking about a simple, jump-from-your-seat shocker without any of the psychological twists of a Silence of the Lambs or the understated shocks of a Psycho. This is more along the slash-and-chop mad killer vein from the Friday the 13th and Halloween vein, though not holiday-specific. By taking facets of Samoan folklore where children died in their sleep of heart failure after horrific dreams, and Craven's own experiences in his youth with bullies and scary hoboes, the characters and symbolism took shape, creating the movie as it is known today.

The special effects are well-done, to say the least. Over 500 gallons of stage blood were used throughout the film, Freddy's charred skin and exposed musculature is quite effective and there are imaginative deaths (in one, Freddy makes it seem as if a troubled youth has hung himself). The makeup department and special effects team are the real stars here.

And far be it from me to ignore what was put in acting-wise. Langenkamp is effective as the troubled Nancy, who grows increasingly more frustrated as the deaths mount up and no one believes her when she blames a spectral killer. Saxon does the dogged cop role once again with a dash of over-protective father thrown in for good measure; Saxon has yet to play any role unconvincingly and goes great here as well. And Johnny Depp's early role as Glen showed promise and flash even then as a teen who admits "Morality sucks".

But what review of Nightmare would be complete without bestowing the proper credit onto Robert Englund? An honest-to-goodness actor (whose biggest role prior to this was as one of the "good-guy" invaders from the TV miniseries "V") whose prominence today as "this generation's Vincent Price" is due in large part to this movie. Seen as a vile, repulsive creature with no redeemable qualities, Krueger's role can only be essayed as high camp. And as it would have been for Price in films like The Abominable Dr. Phibes and Theater of Blood, Englund pours on the gusto and gives it all he's got. For all intents and purposes, Freddy Krueger IS the boogeyman.

But as I said earlier, Nightmare was never meant to be a really effective horror film. What it does create, however, is the unsettling sense of how bad dreams feel to us (or at least to MOST of us). Disorienting surroundings, sudden peals of mad laughter, being chased by something that seems to surround you, the fear of almost certain death - these are all touched on in nearly every moment of the movie. Note that I said TOUCHED ON, not examined. They unsettle, they frighten, then move in for the kill. Not a moment herein challenges, only shocks.

That's the way it's supposed to be, though, you see. Nightmare was not supposed to be a thoughtful undertaking into the psyche of a young teen's mind and what he or she feels AND fears. That would be an entire universe removed from what we see here. Think about it; in all the horror movies you've seen made in recent years based on the mad-killer-after-teens plotline, how many can you think of that actually made you THINK about what you're being afraid of onscreen? Or at least made you wonder about what the person ONSCREEN is thinking?

Well, at least we know what Freddy Krueger is thinking. This is certainly one of those movies where the bad guy gets all the good scenes. Or at least the most memorable ones. How can you root for the good guys or hope that they survive the horrors brought forth when the horrors themselves are embodied so entertainingly?

Am I being too critical? After all, for a movie that made many times over its budget and served New Line Cinemas long and well as a multi-million dollar franchise, no one would think of straying away from a tried-and-true formula. That just wouldn't be Hollywood. And indeed, it appears that Nightmare came into a life of its own with a multitude of sequels, spinoffs (TV's "Freddy's Nightmares"), Halloween costumes, Freddy dolls and fans galore the world over. So in a manner of speaking, Freddy Krueger did just as well as Jason and Michael, if not in the same psychological ballpark as Hannibal Lecter or Norman Bates.

It would take years before Craven (who went on to parody such films with the Scream series) would come back to direct YET ANOTHER sequel to his original creation. But at least in Wes Craven's New Nightmare he (and most of the original cast) hits the nail on the head while examining the joys, pitfalls and true horrors of being part of such a franchise opportunity as Freddy Krueger.

Which is, in the end, all that A Nightmare on Elm Street ends up being.