I haven’t seen that in a really long time. What little I remember was the special effects were not as good as 2001 despite being a few years later. The movie was kind of slow and boring. Of course I was probably 10 or 12 when I saw it.
Can you give me a reason to rent it?
Jim
Exactly. This is the Roger Corman model and he did it incredibly well. No one is saying that Deathstalker was a Great Film. We’re just saying it was a “great” film in that it epitomizes the exploitation sword and sorcery genre of the eighties.
Clash ofthe Titans isn’t even an entry into this genre so I’m a little confused about why it keeps coming up. Conan was close in some ways but it was exploitative on a tertiary level rather then a primary.
As you said, it falls under the Roger Corman model. It’s called the Roger Corman model because he did it better then anyone else. His films acheived exactly what they set out to do. And that’s what makes them “great.”
I’ve seen “Silent Running.” I think it was a pretty good movie for its time. I kinda think George Lucas may have “borrowed” the idea for C3P0 from the little robots that Bruce Dern hung out with. But as I recall, I spent a lot of time waiting for something to happen in that movie.Which was kind of a problem with the story. If only it had had more naked women. (OK, I kid, I kid.)
Barton Fink.
Jeebus, I think I may have to watch Deathstalker again to refute you. thanks a lot! It wasn’t just the naked women, though that WAS an important part of it. Well, I guess Iwas right when I said, “a lot of 'splainin.” Why can’t people just accept my word at face value more. I said it, therefore it’s true. Works for your average prophet.
I found that a very tediuos and difficult movie to sit through.
Why is it good, I don’t get it?
Jim
Lib, I think you may be confused. Barton Fink didn’t have any naked women tied to anything. It’s an easy mistake to make. The movie you’re thinking of is actually Deathstalker.
For my part, I submit to you Northfork. Just you try convincing people they should go with you to see a movie with Nick Nolte playing the role of his mugshot, a kid who may be an angel, Dr. Green who is an angel, and Salvador Dali’s horse. Oh yeah, and there’s a dam and half a church and almost no color…
OK, I watched Deathstalker and now I feel a LOT better about it. True, many parts of the film are seriously underlit. But when it comes to delivering cheesy SF thrills, Deathstalker is definitely at the top of the heap. It had a LOT more nudity and bondage than I remembered, more or less seamlessly integrated into the adventure story. It had muscular barbaric heroes fighting it out and killing one another senselessly, and half-naked women treated like sexual snack foods, as well as a sword-weiling kickass hottie who has brief but meaningful sex with the hero. Altogether, a very fine 80s sword and sandal film.
I have no idea how Deathstalker spoiled the fantasy genre for anyone. It merely was a really powerful expression of one aspect of fantasy. It should have created more opportunities for fantasy films of all kinds. I can’t help it if filmmakers didn’t have enough sense to follow its lead.
And exactly HOW did Deathstalker ruin things for other kinds of fantasy films, anyway?
Not to be snarky, or anything, but did any of you guys (Evil Captor especially) bother to read the OP?
The OP asks for best movies that require explaining.
What on earth does that have to do with “this movie is so kewl, because it got bondage and boobies”.
Can we please try and keep this thread on track?
Just asking.
Because that’s EC’s little obsession. It’s sort of like my nominating “Witness” for best movie of all time because I like woodworking and there’s a barn-raising scene in it.
Your mistake is thinking that this thread was ever anything but a transparent excuse to discuss a bondage movie that has no actual artistic merit.
There has been extensive discussion of Star Wars at my instigation and of other movies at the instigation of others. If you had actually read the thread you would know that. If you have a movie you want to discuss, I suggest you see if you can somehow bother yourself to discuss it.
Instead of doing that other thing that you’re doing.
Evil Captor wrote the OP so it’s on the track he wants it to be. Which means I’ll be bowing out of what could have been an interesting discussion. Not that I have any moral objections (or any morals for that matter) I just find it tedious.
Try Destination Moon, which has an extremely realistic portrayal of a trip to the moon, down to amazing low-g scenes.
http://www.geocities.com/scifiart/DestinationMoon/moon3.html
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/DestinationMoon/LunaTop.htm
Admittedly, it’s 19 years early, but given the limitations of the art at the time, it’s amazing.
I would have considered Barbarella an earlier contender for the title, myself. Though there were certainly efforts before that.
To get back to the OP…
Memento is a real twisty-turny movie. So is Murder by Death and Dark City. I liked Time after Time very much when it came out (I think it was shown on HBO every other day for the first five years of the network), but I don’t think it requires too much explaining.
All four of these are worth a look, though, for very different reasons.
Nope, they’re from Metropolis and Hidden Fortress.
I suppose I should throw in the traditional ‘Striptease’ and ‘Starship Troopers’, as movies that require explaining, and are apparently good to people who think they’re good. (I am one of those who realize that Starship Troopers inherently pisses me off, and thus will refrain from judging it.)
What movies do require explaination? Andy Warhol’s work? Art films? Ingmar Bergman made sense to me without outside influence.
Truthfully, I think a well made movie should be whole within itself. It should contain all you need to understand it, given a reasonable knowlege of the time it was made. They may require effort, but not explaination.
That would be the one with all the Chesley Bonestell paintings. I’ll grant you the look of the film was amazingly accurate. In fact, Bonestell’s image of the lunar surface is so close to the real thing it’s kind scary, But the point about the NASA films is that they gave a verisimilitude to outer space imagery that had never existed prior to actual space exploration. Quite simply, audiences knew what things in outer space were supposed to look and move like, having seen the NASA films, so they tended to believe images which conformed with what NASA told us things in outer space moved and looked like. Bonestell, talented though he was, didn’t have that bit of authenticity going for him when “Destination Moon” was made.
In the same way, all the current Mars movies have to deal with the NASA images of what Mars looks like, one way or another. And they gain in credibility when they do.
I meant to add to my previous post, if you wnat to nominate “Destination Moon” for Best SF/Fantasy movie of its decade based on its remarkably prescient images of outer space, I’ll give you that. I’m not sure it’s the best, but it’s a fair basis for a nomination.
Barbarella, IIRC, was from the 60s, so there’s no conflict between it and Deathstalker for “best of the decade” award. I’ll grant you it combined SF and softcore tease very nicely. Especially that scene in the opening credits. It also had a nice, gentle sense of fun to it that a lot of fantasy films could benefit from. And um, Jane Fonda in her sex kitten phase. Yowr and so forth. But is it better than “Destination Moon”? Or 2001? tough competition.
I think the first three movies you mentioned are generally well regarded in their respective genres as to require no explanation. Time after Time didn’t impress me … seemed an average kinda B grade SF flick. Though that line quoted earlier about the Ripper being an amateur was good. I think Time after Time would require explanation … why would one want to consider it the best of the decade for SF/Fantasy flicks?