CMT - The Fly (1958)

The fear of failure is a crippling disability. It can pervade your life, halting all of your goals and ambitions. In response to that dreaded feeling, human beings respond in a number of different ways. We can dodge our initial plans and aim for something easier, or we can dive deeper into our work, with an alarming obsession.

Classic Movie Trailers - The Fly (1958)

To this date, I haven't worried about running out of commentary, in regards to the films that I've been watching. Every single picture is its own experience, and I react to each one in a different way. If ever there is any doubt beforehand, it melts when I finally sit down for a viewing. This time, as I watched the story unfold, I couldn't help but to be reminded of Frankenstein.

Mary Shelley's novel is one of my all time favorite books, and though I'd gladly mention it with any opportunity, this is a valid comparison. Consider a scientist on the brink of an amazing discovery. This man collapses into his trade and shuts the door on the outside world. Behind his feverish pace, he fears that his colleagues will misunderstand, or judge him harshly; nevertheless, he's on the brink of a success that will also lead to disaster.

The themes are the same. The outcomes of the stories are somewhat different, but the traits that Victor Frankenstein had are mirrored in Andre. I wouldn't be surprised if the former was an inspiration, for the creation of the latter and while contemplating that, I thought about the remake. There is another film called "The Fly", and that one may be more familiar to you.

It was released in 1986, with Jeff Goldblum at the top of the card, along with Geena Davis. Many years have passed since I have seen that film, but if I recall it correctly, it had some pretty gross special effects. I'd put it into the same category as John Carpenter's "The Thing", which was also, arguably a remake. Those two movies were chilling in their time, but I now find myself wondering, if fear is exactly what drove the productions.

If you take a moment to think about remakes, you may note that they represent a reduced risk, in the eyes of a movie studio. The production costs of films are quite high, so instead of banking on a new intellectual property, it makes a lot of sense to revive an old one. I will concede that perhaps it's also a service, and that remakes help keep great stories alive. Still, the skeptic in me can't help but question, whether or not they represent a lack of confidence.

I'll leave it up to you, to determine the answers, but before I close, allow me to make a suggestion. The "mad scientists" that I have grouped together, were both shy in regards to sharing their discoveries. They were horribly afraid of persecution, but they were also afraid that they wouldn't be believed. I think the best course of action, is to share your work with all of your loved ones. You'll have a better chance of support, access to crucial feedback, and a guard against a possible rush towards tragedy.

Trailer Here.

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

@ChannelSeals

See "The Fly" on Netflix!

CMT - Disney's Tarzan (1999)

In entertainment, there are a number of tropes that we're familiar with. These devices are artistic choices and not necessary ones. Over time, we've not only come to accept these tropes, we expect them. Additionally, we look at them to determine our personal tastes and to define our chosen culture.

Classic Movie Trailers - Tarzan (1999)

Today's animation owes a lot to Walt Disney. More specifically, the company that bears his name is largely responsible, for how Americans and much of the world views cartoons. Let's use tone as a basic example. When many of us see animated characters, we expect that the story is heavily comical.

There is nothing inherent to animation, which demands that it be comedic in nature. There is no law or tenet of fiction that's broken, if an animated film is somber instead. If we had not been exposed to "Aladdin" and "Peter Pan" and "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", we might well assume that all movies of that sort end in tragedy. In fact there is nothing, whatsoever incorrect in saying, that if the past had been different, we would expect horror movies to be drawn rather than filmed. It may feel incorrect to suggest that alternative outcome, but that feeling is only due to your expectations.

Putting tone aside for a while, there are some specific things that Disney films are known for. Anthropomorphism strikes me as one of the most common, but unlike "Tom and Jerry", Disney animals talk a lot and I wonder if people think about that. What if we moved that device over to live action films? There's "Doctor Dolittle" sure, but what if every movie was like that?

What if every actor stopped to sing, in the middle of a scene? What if every score was replaced by a soundtrack filled with voices, instead of the sounds of an orchestra? You may argue that those choices are fitting, but they are choices. If we fail to point them out, we run the risk of taking them for granted.

So Disney films are musicals. Disney films are comedies. Disney films show intelligent, talking animals, and feature well known musicians like Phil Collins. Given those tropes, you might assume that Disney films are also limited, but "Tarzan" proves they are not.

This particular Disney film is an action movie as well. It is in fact, so bold in that pursuit, that it tackles subjects we may not associate with Disney films. If I were to tell you, that this kind of film could suggest infanticide, you might not believe me at first. If I said that Disney films are full of gunfire and death, I doubt there is one person that would immediately agree.

If I'm wrong however, if you are such a person, then I'd bet my bottom dollar you're a Disney fan. You know about the tough scenes and the quieter moments, between all of the laughs. You've sung along with all of the tunes and cried moments later, when they decided to darken the mood.

I would even guess, that you have cried at the same scenes multiple times. Even though you know they are coming, even though you have the movies all but memorized, it's possible to feel the same emotions, every time. I'll tell you something else you already know: what matters is not what is shown but how it is shown. What matters is not what's said but how it is said, and Disney movies are masterful at saying just enough.

So this toast is to you my friends, for all of us are in the same camp. Despite our regional, racial, religious and political differences, there is a common bond. We may not all appreciate Disney's work to the same extent, but we were all children. In some way, our lives have been affected by the influence those movies have, and they've shaped our way of thinking as well as they have shaped the genre.

https://youtu.be/lfciC33t3M0

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

@ChannelSeals

See "Tarzan" on Netflix!  

CMT - Bloodsport

Most of us have at least one favorite film, that we've seen multiple times. In addition to that movie, there are those we've seen in the past, that are in regular TV rotation. Given the opportunity to see something for the fifth or sixth time, you may be surprised to notice small details, that you weren't aware of before. It's satisfying, to be able to point those out, and it's interesting to note how the passage of time influences what we see.

Classic Movie Trailers - Bloodsport (1988)

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this movie. I'm not saying that I've seen it dozens of times, I'm saying that I honestly don't know, how often I've sat down to watch it. "Bloodsport" was a big hit, back when Netflix wasn't a thing and HBO was the dominant source of entertainment.

It must have run on every channel that could possibly show it, and they must have shown it hundreds of thousands of times. If "Beverly Hills Cop II" and "Ghostbusters" wasn't on, I'd bet money that you could find Van Damme and Bolo Yeung, somewhere in the schedule. I don't think there's any question, that the majority of the people that are fans of this movie, never saw it in a movie theater. All you had to do was adjust the rabbit ears on the set, and you could watch the show again and again.

Personally, I don't ever think I've caught it at the beginning. Whenever it was on, I got to see it somewhere in the middle. Of course, I was also normally watching the "made for TV" cut, so there were plenty of changes done to reduce the violence and soften some of the language. While watching it again online, I was reminded about the obvious voice-over work, that's ubiquitous in old broadcast television.

It was then, that it hit me. I had never realized before, that they changed Chong Li's voice. It's a little embarrassing to admit this today, but I honestly didn't catch that until now. You would think that it might seem odd, for a man from China to sound like the leader of a biker gang. For some reason though I was fooled, and I have been a fool for years.

To be fair, Bolo wasn't the only one to lose his voice, and I did catch on to that fact before. There are at least two other actors in "Bloodsport", that had their dialogue replaced by other people. The practice is a lot more common than you may realize, and when it's done well you'd never expect it. Let's just say that there would be a lot more accents, and a lot more cringe-worthy performances, if the studios weren't allowed to change the sound.

After I had sufficient time to cope with my discovery, I took a few moments to think about what else I might have missed. Regarding this particular movie, I can report that an underlying theme involves the mindset, of professional fighters. Boxers, martial artists and people of that ilk, are largely misunderstood. They are driven by more than just money, and more than just some base need to beat down on an opponent.

If fighting is your trade, and that is a part of who you are, you need some test of skill. It isn't a craft that you can frame and put on a wall somewhere. There has to be some way to gauge how far you've come, and the only way to do that is to compete. If every one of them fought only when they had to, if every fighter simply taught in a school, I imagine there would be a lot of people living with regret.

Trailer Here.

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

@ChannelSeals

See "Bloodsport" on Netflix!

CMT - Labyrinth

Movies are collaborations, that occur for various reasons. Often, a story will be the catalyst, which brings a large group of people together. In some cases though, a concept is all that is needed, to get the ball rolling. In others, a number of people decide to work together, and the movie is the vehicle which allows that.

"Labyrinth" is a showcase of the different talents, held by those involved with it. On display, is the imagination and expertise of Jim Henson, creator of the Muppets. You also have the musical gifts of David Bowie, the acting of Jennifer Connelly, and the guidance of George Lucas among others. Unfortunately, all of that ability doesn't mask the fact, that there wasn't a good reason to make the film in the first place.

Classic Movie Trailers - Labyrinth (1986)

Puppetry is just another form of animation. I don't know if it's as celebrated as computer, or traditional hand-drawn cartoons, but their goals are essentially the same. Artists that take up the craft, bring life to inanimate objects. If we look at animatronics, the difference between that and puppet work, is that the latter isn't trying to fool you. The practice isn't about trickery; it's a performance art like acting, singing or comedy.

Puppeteers want to amuse us, with the mannerisms and behaviors they can give, to their sculpted and stuffed characters. They move the arms, mouths, eyelids, and bodies of their figures in a skillful way. When the curtains are drawn, the creations are imbued with personalities that weren't there before. If it's skillfully done, it is a joy to see.

After an hour goes by however, you might decide that you have seen enough. Puppets are puppets; we know what they are, and they can only hold our attention for so long.."Labyrinth" takes a great deal of time, to show off the work of the animators. I would even argue, that the plot of the film was merely an excuse, to do just that.

The presence of David Bowie, was the other major selling point. Plenty of musicians have turned to acting, at some point in their careers, and though the results have been mixed, I thought his work was commendable. Unfortunately, we aren't ever allowed to forget who David is. Half of the movie could have been cut out, and turned into music videos for him.

There is yet another attraction to note, and it's the performance from the main actress. It's just as enjoyable as the music and the puppetry, but those elements weren't used, to create something separate and worthwhile on its own. A strong screenplay would have been the twine, that tied all of the good things together. Contrary to that, the final cut of the film shows, that the blueprint behind it is the weakest link in the chain.

It was still a treat to revisit the movie, and appreciate the good parts of it. I don't think it's something to be watched multiple times, or even watched in its entirety. I think of "Labyrinth", more as a collection of good moments. You can get the most out of it, by viewing those moments on their own, instead of experiencing them together.

Trailer Here.

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

@ChannelSeals

See "Labyrinth" on Netflix!