CMT - The Magnificent Seven

If you were asked to define a character, where would you begin? Perhaps it's best to start with a name, and to identify the gender. Age is important to acknowledge, as is a person's height and weight, their hair color, and their racial and ethnic identities. The manner of dress might also be notable and an indicator of personality.

Well you might be surprised to learn, that none of those things are very important. In fact, if we were to depend on those characteristics, we would never come close to understanding who people are, and that's whether they're real or imagined. A lot of moviegoers focus on dialogue, and there have been some memorable lines delivered, during Hollywood's long history. If we are to examine character however, quotes are insufficient; the heart of the character lies not in what they say, but in what they do.

Classic Movie Trailers: The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Words are cheap and it's easy to get caught up in them. Let's note some famous one-liners, like "I'll be back" and "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". As memorable as those are, they don't say very much about the characters behind them. It's also worth recognizing, that a person is capable of saying something and then acting in a way, that contradicts that statement. Meanwhile, those actions are the keys that we've been looking for, this entire time.

While watching "The Magnificent Seven", I was only able to pick up the names, of a fifth of the cast. When you're dealing with an ensemble, it's difficult to hold onto that information; there's a plot that's unfolding and the other dialogue is important, for exposition. Fast forward to a few weeks later, and I could only recall the handle of the protagonist. If you were to ask me about the coward of the gang though, I'd instantly know who you were referring to.

The other characters in the film, defined themselves in a myriad of different ways. The tall and skinny guy is adept with a knife. The young and inexperienced hand drinks when he's upset, and he doesn't take "no" for an answer. The antagonist is boastful and talkative. The sidelkick is always ready for battle and the hero is amazingly restraint, merciful and compassionate.

It is how those qualities are revealed, with actions, that stay with us after the film's running time. Names, places and numbers all fade away, and rightfully so; they're not nearly as important. Even what is said is normally forgotten, but how it is reacted to, remains significant, With every movement a character makes, they communicate who they are, from simple acts like lighting a cigarette, to the firing of a gun.

So remember that an honest man is a liar, until proven otherwise. A pious man is a blasphemer, and a skilled doctor is an untrained hack. No name, or title is valid until confirmed, and nothing is confirmed until the audience sees it for themselves. In life, as in fiction, we are not correctly defined by words or physical traits; we are defined by the choices we make.

Trailer Here
-------------------------------
@ChannelSeals

CMT - The Running Man

There are a lot of ingredients a film needs, for it to stand out amongst its peers as an example, of the best that the art form has to offer. In regards to that, the story is of the utmost importance. If the script is weak you begin the production, of what is essentially a house, with flawed foundations. Also integral to the process, is the careful selection of the builders, or the actors. Nearly every member of the crew in fact, is important to make a great film; but f you just want a movie that makes a lot of money, then the requirements are  totally different.

Classic Movie Trailers: “The Running Man” (1987)

Opinions are going to differ, regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger’s acting ability. I enjoyed his performance as Dutch in “Predator”, and I found him to be more believable there, than as Ben Richards in the “The Running Man”. I’d note however, that regardless of what role he plays, Arnold is still Arnold, and the fact that I think of his work in this way, is telling. That’s not to say that Arnold was a bad actor in his day, but it might suggest that he was merely a competent one.

One of Schwarzenegger’s greatest challenges as an actor, is his accent. There are words of dialogue, that you can give to almost any professional actor, but you can't give them to Arnold with a straight face. “Meat grinder” in “Predator”, is a good example of this; they're more careful of that in this film. More talented actors, are able to change their accents convincingly, but I’d never claim that Arnold wasn’t talented, though he obviously wasn't as skilled.

He was serviceable in the eighties, and when I watch his later performances, as in “True Lies” for example, I feel the same way. He wasn’t a great actor but he certainly wasn’t bad, and I’d say the same regarding The Running Man’s other elements. The story wasn't poorly done and generally speaking, neither was the dialogue. The effects are decent to look at, as are the rest of the visuals.

Maria Conchita Alonzo and Richard Dawson gave the best performances; I consider the rest of the acting to be merely serviceable, for the most part, but that’s what you need. Everyone involved should, at the very least, perform competently. As long as the budget is adequate and there is a quality marketing campaign, you’re likely to produce something that’s successful financially, if not as much so, critically,

There’s still an essential piece of the puzzle to discuss though. If you want an adequate budget and a quality marketing campaign, you’d better have a star on the team. Studios and investors won't put up a lot of money, unless there’s someone in top billing that can put butts in the seats. Arnold put butts in the seats, and whatever you say about his work, you can't deny that.

Schwarzenegger was, unquestionably, the biggest name in action. He played lead roles in over two dozen Hollywood films, and he was at the top of the card for both “Predator” and “The Running Man”, which debuted in the same year, five months apart. Arnold was hot, and I doubt there was a decent script in the business, at that time, that didn't somehow find its way, to his agent's desk.  

Ultimately, that's how the business works; that's how the movies get made. It isn't how they’re dreamed of or conceptualized, but in the nitty-gritty, dollars and cents reality, it's how they are born. Wonderful words on a page are just that and no more. Pretty pictures and set designs are nice but, most people go to the movies to see other people and if you don’t have someone they want to see, you probably won’t have a hit.

Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in plenty of hits, though I don't consider "The Running Man" to be one of them. It's an average popcorn film, that looks like it was adapted from a comic book, instead of a Stephen King novel. To that end, it is staffed with villains that actually look capable, of giving Arnold a hard time and that makes it an enjoyable experience. This particular film didn't set the world on fire, when it debuted; but the studio recouped the cost of the production, investors made a little extra cash and the Hollywood machine kept running, fueled by one of its biggest stars.                 

Trailer Here

------------------------------

@ChannelSeals

CMT - The Toxic Avenger

Sometimes, while watching a film, an important moment arrives; it's the moment when we realize that we're not enjoying it. You might suddenly remember a task to be done, or some other reason to pull out your smartphone. You could daydream right into real dreams, and wake up during the credits. Some people talk right over a movie, since it isn't entertaining on its own, and these are all tell-tale signs.

The most significant thing you can do in those situations, is to acknowledge the problem and make a conscious decision. One of the best options you have to choose, is to simply choose something else. Often however, you might be tempted to "stick it out", in order to see if it "gets better". When that happens you should be extremely wary; it just might be the worst thing you could possibly do.

Classic Movie Trailers: The Toxic Avenger (1984)

There's no need to critique the film. There are people that get paid to do that. There's also no need to justify, the cost of the ticket. Time is a much more precious commodity, than the price of admission, whatever it is.

Why tie ourselves, or our loved ones down, to seats we'd rather leave? Why text a friend instead of meeting that friend, to do something that's actually enjoyable? Why do we try to hide the truth, when it's so blatantly obvious? I wonder how many relationships would benefit, from each party acknowledging, that they can't possibly agree on all entertainment.

The wonderful thing about films, if you fancy them, is the fact that there's something for everyone. Let's say that there's a picture you've seen, that you loathe. You dislike it to such an extent, that you can't understand how anyone could possibly enjoy it. Personally, I think that if movies don't occasionally leave us with that feeling, there's an audience somewhere that's not being served.

By that same logic, if we're wasting time, hanging onto a subpar experience, what else are we missing? "The Toxic Avenger" taught me two things; one is "Quit while you're ahead",  and the other is, "There's an audience for almost everything". That audience can be very big, or it can be minuscule, but it's there. If we aren't a part of that audience, then finding another club is probably ideal.

Trailer Here

--------------------------

@ChannelSeals 

CMT - Batman '89

Bruce Wayne has fared a lot better than Clark Kent over the years, at least in film. I'd even argue, that Batman is the more popular of the two. The Caped Crusader is arguably on par, with recognizable characters such as James Bond, Doctor Who and Sherlock Holmes, if he hasn't outright surpassed them. Regarding Superman, it's fun to imagine ourselves with that much power, but it's also much harder to believe.

Classic Movie Trailers: Batman (1989)

I'm not a huge Batman fan, but I do love what he represents. If you separate the character from the other DC Heroes, such as Superman and Wonder Woman, and just looked at his entourage and his main rogues gallery, nothing there is unbelievable. It's not necessarily realistic, to assume that one man could do as Wayne does and survive even one year at it, but Batman doesn't ask that you throw logic out of the window. He asks that you suspend disbelief.

Instead of frequently crossing the line into fantasy, Batman spends most of his time in a world that, though fantastic, is conceivably possible. As a kid I understood this, and it made the fiction so much more accessible and enjoyable. There was also a level of authenticity to the character, and to Gotham, that couldn't be overlooked. Most of The Dark Knight's adventures were not "kiddie-fare"; regardless of the medium, you took the stories seriously.

In 1989, Hollywood was in a different place, than it is today. Superhero blockbusters were not on the regular menu, and they certainly weren't mass produced to such an extent, that multiple films of the genre would be seen within a year. Taken on its own however, "Batman" is not a superhero film. It is a film of over-the-top characters and amazing situations, but it keeps itself grounded, with a very plausible story.

Bruce Wayne is depicted as a real man, with a real history, real motivations and shortcomings. Since the subject of the picture is treated with such respect, we are treated to a film, that lets us see it as truth. There have been Batman movies released since, that did not have the same gravitas, and were not as deserving of our admiration. However, you could argue that similar films emerged later, with the same tone, and that they yielded better results; but even if that's so, all of those films owe their existence to this one.

"Batman" proved that the genre could work. It proved that such a production could be revered, as much as it revered its characters. More importantly, it showed that, at least during the running time, both man and child could stare with the same wild-eyed amazement. The Batman was real, and we all believed it.

Trailer Here

-------------------------

@ChannelSeals

CMT - Tombstone

Most are keenly aware, of their own talents and passions. For many of us, those passions have to be put aside, at least somewhat, in order to live practically. Ask yourself, how many restaurant waiters are really actors, waiting for a break? How many employed in retail stores are songwriters or singers, or rap artists or composers?

There are millions of us, that fit those or similar descriptions. Of that multitude, some portion is still actively pursuing their goals. Others have become despondent, and have yet to return to them. Still others, have entered into a state of denial. Since they believe that their dreams aren't possible or desirable enough, they imagine that they are, or can be, someone else entirely.

Classic Movie Trailers: Tombstone (1993)

I'd really like to be a card player. I had a lot of fun years ago, playing poker with friends, and watching Hold 'em played professionally, really endeared me to the lifestyle. It's exciting, watching them make gutsy calls, for hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. I can't tell you how often I daydreamed about sitting there with them.

In reality, I'm not a card player at all, and I doubt I could ever be a serious one. The profession requires a firm grasp of mathematics, and I don't even have a loose grip. If I chose, I could dedicate myself to learning, what I should have picked up in higher education, but this would ultimately be an act of self-denial. I'm a writer, and an artist, and to deny that is to deny the world the scope of my abilities.

What I do, my gifts, are not necessarily practical or marketable. If I walked into a job placement firm, I would be considered an "unskilled worker", when just the opposite is true. Knowing this, I have often fallen into the traps of despondency and denial: the dream killers. But, like Popeye says, "I am what I am, and that's all that I am".

Popeye... What a brilliant philosopher he turned out to be. And, he's absolutely right. We can learn, and grow and become better people, but I believe that there's a part of the individual, an identity, that remains constant. We can try to change it, in pursuit of fame and fortune, but that's not what we really want. We want to be rewarded for being ourselves.

According to "Tombstone", Wyatt Earp was a born lawman. He was sincere though, in wanting to give up that life, and I can sympathize with that. Beyond the pursuit of financial reward, escaping the life of an officer is to escape the dangers, and the ever-present responsibility, that I'm sure can be tiresome. In the end however, the journey back to ourselves is inevitable.

Being who we are, that's another responsibility and it would be detrimental to us, to try to avoid it. Whether our chosen path, leads to the life of a pauper or a prince, the path is what it is. We can try and turn from that path, but we would defeat ourselves, regardless of the outcome. Please keep in mind, and take this from my writing if you take nothing else: there is no clear path to success, no matter what you choose to do.

So knowing that, and taking that into account, wouldn't you rather enjoy the ride?

Trailer Here

-----------------------------
@ChannelSeals