First Blood

Release Year: 1982

Director: Ted Kotcheff

Review: There are many films that deal with the effects of war on returning soldiers, but perhaps none as indelible as 'First Blood'.  It was the start of a beloved franchise to be known for its action and gore, but at its beginnings it's a disturbing look in the psyche of an individual scarred by war.  In it, Sylvester Stallone plays the iconic John Rambo, a Vietnam War Green Barrette and war hero.  Unable to cope with life once returning from war, Rambo roams around aimlessly until he is picked up for vagrancy.  The police push him around causing him to have flash backs to the war, pushing him over the edge.  In a rage he escapes and from custody, and from then on its him versus the entire police force and national guard.

Rambo is really a sad character.  Here is a man that has been bred to kill, and now he is expected to live a normal life.  It's harrowing to see him turned into the villain.  To see his country once again turn his back on him.  The problem is, the film is too afraid to really delve into this.  They want to play it both ways.  Wanting to both have a meaningful look into a serious problem in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but also appeal to mass audiences and have a blockbuster action film.  While the film probably brought in more money because of this route, it also diminishes what it could have been.

Rambo is made into a hero.  A victim of circumstance, who is being forced to wage this war.  He never actually kills anyone, since the film wants us to believe he is the one doing the right thing and that the police are the bad guys.  There is a fundamental problem in this, in that Rambo is in the wrong. Fighting, and destroying a town is in no way an appropriate response to being roughed up by the police.  The reason he does this is because he has snapped, and his war training is kicking in.  Only the film, in order to soften his character, is continually showing that he is perfectly sane, by showing restraint and remorse.  These two aspects constantly conflict with each other and make the emotional connection to the character shaky. 

As an action movie, it is also a bit of a let down.  While Rambo is a fantastic action figure, there is a surprising lack of actual fighting.  Where in the sequels Rambo is famously known as a killing machine, in this first chapter there is mostly talk of his fighting skills rather than actual demonstration.  This, again, is partly because having Rambo mow down the local police force would hurt his image.  There are however, some intense sequences which show glimpses of the awesome abilities of Rambo.  I'm not contesting that the lack of killing is a downside of the film.  On the contrary, the personal struggle of a disturbed war vet is the far more interesting story and I wish it was more the focus.

Rating: 3.5/5

Diner

Release Year: 1982

Director: Barry Levinson

Review:  A bunch of guys hanging out.  That's the way it was for the group of friends in highschool, and now in their 20's its still the same.  No matter where life has taken them, or the problems in their personal lives, these group of friends can find safe haven in the Diner, where they instantly get taken back to a less complicated era and can just have a good time.  The film takes place in Baltimore in 1959, as the group of friends gather for one of the guy's wedding. The group as a whole is the star, played by a great ensemble cast early in their careers consisting of Steven Guttenberg, Daniel Stern, Mickey Rourke, Kevin Bacon, Tim Daly and Paul Reiser.  There isn't so much a narrative as it is a series of situations that take place leading up to one of the friend's weddings.

In the beginning everyone in the clan seems to only be interested in extending their highschool antics.  Wanting to live the care free, wild, days of their youth for as long as possible.  Meeting at the diner and hanging around their old friends allows them to prolong this.  The Diner almost seems like a support group immaturity.  Life has a habit of catching up, however.  They aren't teenagers anymore, and slowly this fact starts to sink in.  They learn that they don't have to give up having fun, and lose comradery simply because they are maturing.

I had a hard time buying into some of the complete pig-headedness of some of the group.  In general the film paints women in a pretty poor light, and while the film is meant to highlight the maturing of the boys, and eventual respect of women, it never quite got there.  What little narrative there was felt shallow, never quite earning the payoff.  The turnaround from immature boys to mature men happens all too quickly for a feeling of authenticity.  What does work is the banter between the group.  It feels like this group of friends have been hanging around the diner of years.  It's very natural feeling and I'm a sucker for good quick dialog.  The problem is, the film isn't funny enough to be taken too lightly, nor poignant enough to be taken seriously.  I was left being mildly amused, but not really getting much out of it.
Rating: 4/5

Burden of Dreams

"Without dreams we would be cows in a field, and I don't want to live like that. I live my life or I end my life with this project."

Release Year: 1982

Director: Les Blank

Review: To understand Herzog films you must first understand Herzog.  This is probably an oversimplification since I'm not sure anyone can understand Herzog.  He is an absolutely driven, purely passionate and completely insane character.  Herzog the man is just as interesting as his films.  To truly appreciate his films, you need to read the stories about making the film.  There may not be a better example of Herzog, the glorious madman, then 'Burden of Dreams' a documentary on the making of 'Fitzcarraldo'.  Herzog takes no shortcuts, makes no excuses, and just goes for it.  If you ever wanted too see what it means to really throw yourself into your work then look no further than Herzog's obsession with completing this film.  This behind the scenes look is absolutely captivating.
Rating: 4/5

Blade Runner

Release Year: 1982

Director: Ridley Scott

Review: Considered one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, 'Blade Runner' had a lot of hype to live up to going in.  Right off the bat I found myself in a quandary. There are several, apparently very different, cuts of the film.  This is a frustration because I don't want to have to do research to find the best version to watch.  I decided to just go with the theatrical release and not worry about it.  My biggest gripes with the film were elements which were not supposed to be in the film and were cut from later releases.  The terrible, and hotly contested, voice over and comfortable ending were ugly holes in an otherwise smooth landscape.  It's too bad they were included in the theatrical release since they didn't go with the rest of the film and felt very out of place.
 
The basic plot of the film is that, in the not so distant future, humanoid robots called "replicants" are created and are nearly indistinguishable from human beings.  After a revolt, replicants are declared illegal on Earth and a special unit of the police called Blade Runners track down any illegal replicants and dispose of them.  Harrison Ford plays a retired Blade Runner who is called out of retirement to track down a few replicants who recently escaped and who are considered highly dangerous.  The gritty noir dystopia that director Ridley Scott creates is the most striking element to the film.  As soon as I hear the title "Blade Runner" I'm instantly transported into the miserable, bleak and dark world in which the scum run the show.  The brilliance of the creation of this environment is that its rooted in reality.  There isn't anything too out of the realm of everyday modern life.  It looks like a place that could exist in the near future, not some idealized, polished, technology driven dreamland. 

While I feel the film is incredibly imaginative in the set design, the plot and some visuals felt too cliche sci-fi.  Rather than transcending the genre it stayed right in the sci-fi stereotype wheelhouse.  If it had a stronger plot these conventional aspects would have been overlooked, but instead it was a bit of a conventional, straight-ahead plot.  At least as far as the general story of the film goes.  What saves it from being a completely forgettable sci-fi thriller are the deep themes in which it explores.  The existential examination is profound, begging the question what it means to be human.  The so called inhuman replicants are just like anyone else, and yet there life is disregarded.  When they die, its just a machine being shut down, but they have the same emotions and memories as anyone.  There are many layers to be peeled off and each one should be examined.  For having such a mundane synopsis, the film utilizes every frame to explore complex themes.  I think at times it stumbles over itself as a sci-fi thriller, but the meaning and symbolism is what makes this a great film.
Rating: 4/5

The Verdict

Release Year: 1982
Review: In 'The Verdict' an ambulance chasing attorney who has fallen on tough times gets a case that slaps him back into reality and ignites him to fight for what's right. It takes a special kind movie to pull this type of plot off. Fortunately this film has the unique combination of a superb actor at the top of his game, sharp dialog and a director who knows how to make those two ingredients mesh together.

It would have been all to easy for this to be a painfully slow and dull legal drama, but with Sidney Lumet in the director chair there was no way that was going to happen. Lumet is a master at directing dialog and a courtroom is the perfect stage for this master to conduct his craft. There is a certain pacing and intensity to dialog in Lumet films which make it all that much more compelling. As good as Lumet's direction is, without a talented actor to deliver the lines, it would still fall flat. Paul Newman is that talented actor in this case. He is fantastic, delivering a rich, emotional, and intensity filled performance. Beyond the acting and dialog, this was a fine examination of the boundaries of the judicial process. Pressing the jury to do what they feel is right and not to over think and get bogged down in bureaucratic nonsense. More than just a courtroom drama, however, it is an interesting look into the life of a ruined man and the extents of his personal will power. With so much going for it, I was a bit disappointed with the way that it ended. There were some dull points, but for the most part it felt like the story kept building up emotionally and was gaining momentum going into the final act only to just kind of fizzle out. It may not be Lumet's best work, but it is a very strong, powerfully acted and emotionally charged drama.
Rating: 3/5

Fitzcarraldo

Release Year: 1982
Review: There is something about Herzog's work that lingers with you long after you finish watching it. The way in which he labors in his film making, ensuring the most authentic experience, impacts the viewer more than any use of special effects ever could. Fitzarraldo is a fine example of the effort Herzog puts forth. He literally drags a boat over a mountain for the filming leading even Werner to call himself the "Conquistador of the Useless". The story itself is in a way a mirror of his filming processes. An inspiring story about a slightly insane man determined to do the impossible in order to raise money to build an opera house. The distinctly Herzogian journey which the film takes you on is beautiful, strange and rewarding-- and worth every minute.
Rating: 5/5

The Secret Of NIMH

Release Year: 1982

Review: One of my favorite movies as a child, I wanted to rewatch this and see how it held up over the years. While it's not at the level of the Disney classics, this is a very well made classic animation with an interesting plot. The story follows the troubles of field rodents injected by scientists making them intelligent, as they try to overcome the dangers of humans and each other. Unfortunately there is too much to this plot to be covered in the short running time of this film, and that is what is really keeping this from being a great film.

Rating: 3/5

Tootsie

Release Year: 1982
Review: Tootsie wasn't all that funny or shrewd. I don't think it's held up well over time, with some of the jokes falling completely flat and 80's music score making it feel more like a sitcom then a feature length film. The highlight of the movie was watching Hoffman immerse himself into the character of Dorothy. He gave himself completely to the role and that alone makes this worth the watch.
Rating: 3/5

A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy

Release Year: 1982
Review: I think this is a highly underrated Woody Allen film. Perhaps I'm being overly kind to the film and overlooking many of the flaws simply because it is an Allen work, but I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. It's light, and while it may not have as many laughs a minute as some other Allen films, it has some wonderful dialog about love and lust. Provided you don't take the film to seriously, and allow yourself to be captured by the smart dialog and beautifully shot scenes, its a wonderful viewing experience.
Rating: 4/5