To defend the Deathstalker genre’s influence, I’d like to call the jury’s eyes to Exhibit C: Flesh and Blood with Rutger Hauer and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Swords and jiggles galore…
…which of course had I clicked on page 2, I would have seen had been submitted already :smack:
Umm…Beastmaster! Yeah! And Krull!
Richard Linklater’s Slacker.
Most people can’t get past its lack of a plot, and most of the people who do like it don’t see anything in it beyond a collection of character studies with only incidental linkage.
The brilliance of the movie is almost entirely in subtext and intertext. Apparently random details carry a ton of layered covert meaning which the characters themselves are blithely unaware of, both in dialogue and visually – stuff relating to Hindu philosphy, pop culture of the 1940s and '50s, Subgenius mythos, and conspiracy theory.
Like James Joyce said (about life in general,) if you don’t pay attention to the details, you’ll miss most of the jokes.
The best of the bunch. Probly due to the director.
The references to Time After Time reminded me of another, better, Jack the Ripper movie…
Murder By Decree.
The story is based upon one of the Ripper theories connecting him to the British Royal family; and puts Sherlock Holmes on his trail. It is well acted, scary and has tons of atmosphere. Unfortunately, it works best on a bigger screen. On a smaller television, like the one I have, gaslight London is far too murky.
Well, the OP makes reference to another thread with a best movie list. Most of the movies on that list were quality films that most people would acknowledge might reasonably be on a “best of the decade for its genre” list, even if they didn’t agree that it was in fact the absolute best of the decade. But if you wanted to nominate some obscure or oddball film, or make up a new genre, that might require explanation for most folk. Hence, “Deathstalker.” I’m well aware that most people might challenge it as the best SF/Fantasy film of the 80s when there were so many other good SF/Fantasy films, in fact, a lot of people have challenged the very notion that it’s a good film in any respect. So I’ve explained, since so many people refuse to simply accept my word on the subject. I’m cool if people disagree, most of the fun comes with working out the reasons an obscure/odd film might be the best rather from reaching any kind of consensus.
I’ve seen “Slacker” and it didn’t even strike me as a fictional piece in most respects – it had the feel of a documetary. I liked it for the quirky characters, like the one who claimed to have a minor celebrity’s leftover organ fro some body part in a jar. But I didn’t even think of it as a fictional piece. I did enjoy all the Subgenius references. If you had a category for indie comedies, I’d consider it a candidate for best.
On the subject of genre movies and PG movies with nudity, I’ll nominate Swashbuckler. It was sort of Marxian take on the old Erroll Flynn pirate films, with Robert Shaw and every goddam actor in Hollywood who wasn’t doing something else. This includes the lovely Miss Genevieve Bujold, on whom I was rather sweet in my early adolescence.
What are you nominating Swashbuckler for, exactly? And Marxian take? Sounds interesting … kinda Robin Hoodish?
Actually more revolutionary Marxian. the pirates lead a rebellion against the evil corrupt governor and his foppish garrison commander. Of course, Bujold is a noblewoman who joins up with the pirates, and the oppressed masses welcome their new Pirate overlords. Shaw and James Earl Jones do a great buddy-film schtick, too. Also has Geoffrey Holder as the spooky voodoo knife-throwing pirate. It is a very silly movie, formulaic in a lot of ways, but lots and lots of fun.
Talked me into it, onto the Netflix Q.
Thanks,
Jim
Close encounters: not a very ‘deep’ film, buit much of it made NO sense at all. for example:m these aliens send a signal to people on eath to gather a the “Devil’s Postpile” (Wyoming). I the meantime, they show up and scare a lot of people 9tho kids love them). Finally, they insist on using some weird Frenchman as a spokesperson, and they wind up swapping some volunteers for the navy pilots that got sucked into the “bermuda Triangle”-back in 1945! And, why did they choose that annoying jumble of notes? And why didn’t they stay around and converse a bit with the top minds on earth 9like some MIT profs., or Nobel peace prize winners?)., Nope, they just come, swap their hostages, and take off-with no clue as to why they did this?
And Richard Drefuss sucked!
and boobies!