• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

J.D. Hansel

  • FILM & VIDEO
  • PODCASTS

1980s Movie Reviews

Brazil Review

January 28, 2016 by JD Hansel

SPOILER ALERT

I think I finally understand what happened here!  Not what happens in the movie Brazil – I could never understand that – but what happened to Labyrinth and Time Bandits.  Some movie buffs and comedy lovers may know that the Monty Python approach to writing movies was generally to come up with different scenes/sketches that would be funny all centered around a general theme, and then a loose story would be created out of stringing the pieces of the movie together.  Naturally, when someone who approaches screenwriting this way has the challenge of writing a more traditional narrative story (that’s focused on likable characters dealing with a dramatic plot, even if that drama is not meant to be taken seriously) we can expect issues to arise with the flow of the story.  For Labyrinth, Terry Jones’ screenplay had to be doctored in secret by other writers because it needed a lot of work before it could be made into the film Jim wanted (which still had leftover story problems in the end).  For Time Bandits, fellow Pythoner Terry Gilliam made a bizarre family film that makes no sense whatsoever, and is often more awkward and convoluted than entertaining.  For Brazil, Gilliam made an iconic ’80s movie masterpiece, but it had similar flaws.

Before going any further, I must recognize that this is, in some ways, a brilliant film.  As satire, it’s practically perfect in every way, and makes the human race seem hilariously absurd.  At some moments, its comedic criticism of war is better than Stanley Kubrick’s.  Much of the film is good fun, and the performances are perfect.  The world Gilliam created is brilliantly clever, and the visuals are absolutely outstanding.  This truly is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever laid eyes upon, as far as visual art is concerned, because the lighting, the colors, the set designs, and the cinematography are all spot-on.  It’s a masterful work of art that raises the bar for the genre of comedy films, and I can respect it if people love this movie a heck of a lot more than I do.

I, however, just don’t get it.  Every now and again, I encounter a movie that has me saying to myself, “What the heck IS this movie?!” more and more as the film progresses.  It’s a very memorable experience, and it usually means that the movie is going to mean a lot to me for a long time, regardless of whether I think of it positively or negatively.  This film had that special quality to it like no movie I’ve seen in a long time, if ever, and I can’t help but be reminded of the first time I saw Gremlins 2, one of my favorite films, and the first time I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of my least favorite.  As blown away as I was with just how perfect certain elements of the film are, I still couldn’t shake the feeling that the story didn’t make enough sense.  Some of that special feeling I mentioned above was coming from a sense of being immensely impressed, but some was coming from being annoyingly confused.  I now understand why Roger Ebert only gave Brazil just two stars saying, “This is a confused and unsatisfying film in which the magnitude of the special effects, and the chaotic implications of the plot, make the movie hard work for any audience to follow, let alone appreciate.”

So, my first criticism is that the movie doesn’t make enough sense.  What starts off seeming like it offers too little with its minimalist plot (which consists of a man trying to meet the woman he’s seen in his dreams) eventually unravels into a psychedelic acid rock song that’s sad about the loss of friendships and angry with society’s constraints.  There is very little correlation between what happens in Sam’s dreams and what he deals with in real life, and this gives the audience too big of a chore when they have to try to find the patterns and the meaning in all this.  Heck, even the movie’s title, and its titular song of the same name, don’t seem to be very connected to the film at all.  There are just too many things that Gilliam did not communicate as efficiently as one would hope.

My second big criticism is directly tied into the first, as it pertains to the lack of satisfaction.  I’m not against a movie that doesn’t end with the characters living happily ever after, but I am against endings that don’t feel “correct.”  I may have written a bit too much about this before, but screenwriter Terry Rossio’s rules about how an ending must be set up, inevitable, and yet unexpected are a good way to figure out why one might feel unsatisfied by a movie.  If the simplistic plot consists of navigating through a dystopian future to marry a dream-girl, there had better be a good reason for missing the one goal we’re rooting for Sam to achieve, but this Gilliam’s only reason seems to be that he wanted to blow one last raspberry at western governments before he had to step down from his soap box.

I think it’s plain to see that I have mixed feelings about this unique work of art.  The various trains of thought that I’ve boarded because of this film are so numerous and labyrinthine that I can reach no final verdict.  I can completely respect the opinion that this is one of the greatest motion pictures of all time, and I can equally respect the opinion that this movie is whiny, bitter rubbish.  Any efforts to unveil what exactly I feel because of Brazil seem to be disappointingly futile, but perhaps the important thing is that it made me feel, and it did so profusely.  When it comes to rating the visuals, however, my feelings are clear: it’s in the 99.9th percentile, A++.

91 Brazil

Filed Under: Film Criticism, New Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1980s Movie Reviews, 1985, Comedy Classics, Essential Classics, Fantasy, Fantasy Worlds & High Fantasy, Foreign, R, Terry Gilliam, Three and a Half Stars

History of the World – Part I Review

July 21, 2015 by JD Hansel

I absolutely love it when a film has such a strong creative essence that it immediately relays its muses to me, who inspire me to express the experience in a review (in much the same way that a songwriter might be overcome by the need to play the expression of his/her passion).  At those moments, the essence of the film appears before me as a dream awaiting a poet’s articulation.  Other films, however, leave me scratching my head (and leave my muses shrugging) as I try to figure out what to make of whatever I’ve just seen.  These are the moments that make me look at Roger Ebert with jealousy, knowing that he could nearly always express exactly how he felt about a movie, no matter the film’s complexity.  Unfortunately, History of the World – Part 1 is a puzzler for me, since I really want to love the film, but I just don’t think I do.

The film has its moments that hit home and are very strong, but it has a lot of moments that simply don’t do it for me.  Unfortunately, the movie can’t decide whether it’s comprised of comedy sketches, vignettes, or (not very) short films.  This inconsistency in length means that many scenes leave me thinking, “that’s it?” while others make me cry, “it’s still going?”  I think that consistency – or, better yet, a narrative (or some focused structure) to tie everything together – would do the film some good.  That being said, I love the “Inquisition” number, and I’m more moved by Mel’s take on 2001: A Space Odyssey than I am by the actual Kubrick film.

I generally wouldn’t hold a vignette-based film to my Pausibility Test (I measure a film by how content I am with pausing it and coming back to it in a few weeks) because the nature of such a film has built-in stopping points, which makes pausing natural.  The problem with this film, however, is that I was content with pausing the movie mid-segment, and I suspect that’s because of the characters.  Ebert helped clarify this for me by pointing out that we are presented with cardboard cut-outs of Jews, monks, etc., but there is not much detail added to make them funny or interesting.  Instead, our interest in each character is dependent on the performers.  While I didn’t necessarily “have a blast” watching the movie, I cannot be as hard on it as Ebert because I suspect that many scenes from it will stick with me for the rest of my life.

64 History of the World - Part 1

Filed Under: Film Criticism, New Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1980s Movie Reviews, 1981, Comedy Classics, criticism, Episodic/Package/Compilation, film, Historical, jd hansel, Mel Brooks, Movie review, R, review, Three and a Half Stars

The Blues Brothers Review

June 21, 2015 by JD Hansel

I must confess that I’m a little disappointed in this one. Having heard such great things about it for so long, I was hoping for a very exciting comedy, but instead got a strangely-paced artsy musical.  I enjoy musicals a lot, so I had a good time during the musical sequences, but the rest of the film felt kind of pointless.  The story may not actually be as weak as it felt to me personally – it might just not be my kind of story – but something about the pace of the thing is certainly off, and there’s something else missing that kept the story from being interesting.  Unfortunately, I can’t put my finger on what that missing element is.

I know I like the actors’ performances, and the characters were fine.  The music was good, but the humor was lacking.  I’m okay with a movie that’s lacking in humor, so long as it has good drama, like in The Graduate.  I really love a great soundtrack, which is what makes it difficult for me to be as hard on this film as I think I ought.  What my problem boils down to is the fact that I don’t believe a film should be considered great purely on the grounds of its visuals or music if the story is weak.  (I even go so far as to argue with the saying that “film is a visual medium” – I say it’s a storytelling medium, and if the particular story being told requires the audio to lead and the visuals to follow, so be it.)  So, am I willing to own up to my claims and condemn the film of mediocrity in spite of its soundtrack?

Well, the music isn’t the only thing I like about it. There’s a really neat atmosphere that I think is unique to the film, and Landis adds a special vibe somehow that creates a very “bluesy” feeling.  Landis also shows off his Muppet fandom with a part played by Frank Oz, and a heck of a lot of Muppet merch in one scene, which I just adore.  There is ample cleverness throughout in both the circumstances that arise and the way they’re handled, but I still get too much of a Pee Wee’s Big Adventure feeling from the writing.  The fun cameos by great performers reminded me very much of my favorite movie, The Muppet Movie, which made this movie even more fascinating.  The film really impressed me with its visuals, as I think it’s a very, very well-shot film, so I’d recommend it to anyone with an interest in cinematography.

Yes, there is a lot to like about it, but it somehow just didn’t quite grab me.  (This may have something to do with the fact that, from what I’ve read, Aykroyd had written an unconventional, dysfunctional script that had to be reworked by Landis.)  In the end, it was a movie I felt like I could just stop watching midway without missing much.  Finishing it felt like a chore.  That’s not a good sign.  So, in spite of all its strengths, I can’t give this the high rating other critics/historians do because it fails at simply holding my attention.

60 Blues Brothers

Filed Under: Film Criticism, Tumblr Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1980, 1980s Movie Reviews, Action & Adventure, Anarchic Comedy, Comedy Classics, Essential Classics, Musical, R, Roadtrip & Buddy Comedies, Steven Spielberg, Three and a Half Stars

This Is Spinal Tap Review

June 18, 2015 by JD Hansel

I don’t review documentaries.  I just wouldn’t know how.  Generally speaking, the world of film production can be split into two career paths: documentary and narrative.  The difference is actually pretty big since it is the role of the narrative filmmaker to tell a cohesive narrative story with a plot, whereas the documentary filmmaker has to find an interesting way to document history, which generally includes a story of sorts.  Because of this, a documentary can be done in many different ways, and most of them are valid, just as long as the information being conveyed is accurate and/or expressed effectively.  To me, that makes a documentary harder to judge.  Add this to the fact that the writers have limited control over the story since it’s based on reality, and the fact that a lot of documentaries are made for television (while I only do theatrical releases), and it should be pretty clear why I can’t bring myself to review the docs I watch.

Then there’s This Is Spinal Tap, which is a scripted story with fictional characters, making it more like a narrative, but it’s done in a documentary style.  Those in the know refer to this as a mockumentary, although this film calls itself a “rockumentary” because it concerns the lives of members of a hard rock group in the 1980s.  There’s actually very little story, and it seems more like a compilation of SNL-like sketches than a real movie, but that’s where the documentary style really helps.  When I watch a documentary – especially one that’s largely just following musicians around – I don’t expect plot.  I just expect to learn about interesting characters, which is what this film provides.

One of the rules I have for movies is that it should be difficult to watch broken up over a span of days.  Ideally, I should hate to pause the movie for a second (if I’m seeing it first viewing).  If I wouldn’t mind pausing it to go watch something else, coming back to the film to watch the rest the following week, that’s usually a sign that the story isn’t right.  This film, which I felt fine with pausing, can get away with it because it’s simply understood that the story isn’t the point – the only goal is to get laughs. Thankfully, the film meets that goal, although I did not laugh as much as I wanted to.  Instead of laughter of various degrees throughout the film, I actually had a few really big laughs during specific, spaced out parts of the film. Most of the times when I was not getting a good laugh felt like filler, but I may have just been missing the parody of other music documentaries at the time.  Either way, this mockumentary is a good time, and I highly recommend it to fans of documentaries, rock music history, or comedy in general.

59 This Is Spinal Tap

Filed Under: Film Criticism, Tumblr Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1980s Movie Reviews, 1984, Comedy Classics, Essential Classics, Four Stars, Mockumentary, R

Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure Review

February 1, 2015 by JD Hansel

Boy, was I ever excited to see this movie.  It’s a cartoony ‘80s comedy directed by Tim Burton!  And did you see its trailer?  It’s bound to be great!

It stunk.  The movie dragged on forever with characters I did not care about and a plot that seemed pointless in the worst possible way.  I know that it’s not right to judge a screenplay based on the movie having not read the screenplay itself, but this movie seems terribly written.  Each scene seems to be without purpose, even to the point that many scenes in the film could be rearranged and it would make no difference.  The plot doesn’t built, the twists are dull or insignificant, the beginning is a waste of time, and the climax, while containing some strong elements, has a scene with Pee Wee rescuing animals from a burning pet store that has nothing to do with anything else in the entire film.  Why in the world should the climax be unrelated?  Who thought this was a good story?

That being said… this movie is so beautiful.  The darkness, the colors, the lights, and all the theatrical visuals make it a distinctly ’80s Burton work of art.  So, so, so many shots in this film are breathtaking, and they inspire me to try to reach their level of majesty should I ever become a filmmaker.  I almost wish that this film did not have Burton as a director.  Had he not done this piece of junk and instead worked on a project with a good story during this time period, he might have made a movie I would have adored.  However, if it led to the ’89 Batman, I guess this movie was meant to be.

41 Pee-Wee's Big Adventure

Filed Under: Film Criticism, Tumblr Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1980s Movie Reviews, 1985, Comedy Classics, Essential Classics, Family, PG, Tim Burton, Two and a Half Stars

A Christmas Story Review

December 27, 2014 by JD Hansel

I meant to have this up by Christmas day, but unfortunately I got very sick, and wasn’t up for writing anything.  Also, I would have a spoiler warning, but it seems there is no need since everyone has seen this movie before.  As many have noted before me, everyone has livedthis movie before.  It effectively captures the experience of being a child during Christmas time, while also adding elements that are plausible or desirable, which fit in perfectly.  This is one of those great movies that should not work, and yet it does.  The plot is loosely connected, the protagonist’s goal is unimportant, the pacing is odd, and there are interruptions (daydreams) periodically – and it still works well.

There are flaws, however.  I am always bothered when family films, particularly those clearly inviting children to watch them, contain elements that may not be appropriate for children, and this movie does have that.  A lot of the jokes are rather weak, which would be bearable if the jokes kept coming constantly, but the film is actually pretty slow.  It is difficult for me to stay focused on the film since it has a pace that is bordering on too slow for me and my ADD.  The unconventional structure also makes it hard to stay into, but that can only be prevented to some degree since the nature of the story is purely a child’s Christmas experience.  I also have issues with the film purely because I can’t totally relate.  I didn’t want a gun as a kid, nor did I get bullied, or get bad grades, or lie much really.

Still, I understand why this is a Christmas classic.  It’s just not one of my favorite Christmas classics.

34 A Christmas Story

Filed Under: Film Criticism, Tumblr Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1980s Movie Reviews, 1983, Christmas & New Year's, Essential Classics, Family, PG, Roger Ebert's "Great Movies", Roger Ebert's Favorites, Three and a Half Stars

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • Page 7
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Archives

The Social Stuff

  • Twitter
  • Letterboxd
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Letterboxd
  • LinkedIn

Copyright © 2025 · J. D. Hansel · WordPress · Log in