None of the emotional responses of any of the characters to any of the situations they face make sense. The narrative structure of the film is weak, the editing is sloppy, and the ending is ridiculous. I love films that depart from the norm, but this was silly. This film shows the tragic results of cocaine use in Hollywood in the period it was made.
shareActually, 1981 was one of Hollywood's greatest years.
It gave us a near-perfect, classic romantic comedy: ARTHUR
One of the greatest pure adventure movies ever made: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
Arguably the greatest neo-noir ever made: BODY HEAT
As well as Michael Mann's first (and in my opinion best) feature film: THIEF, starring James Caan (yes, I think it's far better than the bloated and pretentious HEAT)
A terrific Sydney Pollack film starring Paul Newman and Sally Field: ABSENCE OF MALICE
Warren Beatty's marvelous epic REDS.
John Boorman's earthy and terrific retelling of the King Arthur legend, EXCALIBUR.
Paul Newman (again) in FORT APACHE THE BRONX
As well as the underrated sci if thriller OUTLAND... a solid 007 outing: FOR YOUR
EYES ONLY... Ray Harryhausen's final motion picture CLASH OF THE TITANS... and Sylvester Stallone in the gripping cop thriller NIGHT HAWKS.
Ugh ... I don't like any of those movies.
Michael Mann's best ... the absolute amazing and fantastic "Last Of The Mohicans".
Didn't know Mann did "Mohicans". Anyway, you didn't like "Raiders"? You didn't like "Clash of the Titans" as a kid?
shareI couldn't disagree more. The film is a summation of all the shattered idealism & sense of betrayal that so many Americans felt at that time, realizing the full extent of political-military corruption (Vietnam, Watergate, illegal CIA intervention across the world), financial corruption (growth of soulless corporate power & control), and overall moral/ethical corruption in the nation's soul.
Cutter is the embodiment of all those feelings, desperately needing to make someone pay—early on, he references Ahab & Moby Dick—in the climactic scene, he's literally riding a white horse into the stronghold of his enemy, a damaged knight determined to take down the embodiment of all that's gone wrong in America. He refuses to remain uncommitted, as his friend Bone has done for most of his life—and his final action awakens Bone to finally commit himself just as fully to that pursuit of justice, no matter what the personal cost.
Seriously. Cutter ran up in there, knowing somehow the exact room Bridges and the bad guy were in. It was so classic. I kinda feel what the OP is saying what with the weak plot and all, but when they enter the mansion grounds at the end, I was on the edge of my seat; when Cutter was riding that horse, I was cheering for real. Almost woke the baby.
shareThat's the problem with a large majority of the films of the '70s and '80s. They have some great ideas, and some great moments, but they're poorly made overall. There was no oversight, and the directors were allowed to run unchecked. Occasionally that works, but usually it doesn't, and after the studio system ended, it took a loooong time for Hollywood to find its bearings again.
sharePersonally, I'm a big fan of the looseness those films had in the '70s & into the '80s. Much more preferable to me than the current insistence on every single tiny piece fitting together perfectly & explained in exacting detail to the audience. Either direction can be taken too far, of course. Still, if I had to err on the side of excess, I'd still tend to go for that looseness. I think it works wonderfully for . But that's just my particular temperament, needless to say.
shareI'm of the opposite camp. I think movies are far tighter and better-made today. I think they heyday for cinema was from about 1922-1949, with a huge resurgence since 1994, kicked off by Pulp Fiction. The '60s through 1993 is my least favorite era. That isn't to say I don't enjoy any films from that time, but the great ones are fewer and farther between.
I don't need every detail explained per se, and one of my least favorite things in modern films is the post-denouement flashback where they show you all the clues and moments that mattered, but I typically dislike needless meandering, a staple of the '70s especially.
Fair enough. I'm glad there are enough varied movies to please just about everyone.
shareWell sit tight, FilmBuff, for Guardians of the Galaxy III is on its way to lead you to the rapture. Maybe we'll even get Iron Man 4 and some new MCU multiverse films. Yes, these are the halcyon days of cinema. Who needs all those boring films of the 70s and 80s when you've got such a treasure trove of creativity in modern cinema, right? Lol. Film buff? Please.
shareAh yes, the cliche retort here. "You don't like Film I Like? Philistine! You're the reason we have Transformers films!"
If you don't want to discuss the topic at hand, so be it, but why reply to a post from 4 months ago merely to insult someone else?
And if you are going to insult someone, at least get your insults right. Don't suggest that someone who disliked Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and Iron Man 3 is suddenly on the edge of his seat for sequels to the films.
Ahh relax. It wasn't a personal insult. It was actually a backhanded compliment. I can tell that you're articulate and you really like cinema. Because of that, I am truly amazed that you would consider films today (mid-90s and onward, speaking on average) to be "better-made" than those of the 70s and 80s. As much as I enjoyed Pulp Fiction, I think it's one long exercise in needless meandering courtesy of the one filmmaker who can pull that off. Pulp Fiction inspired a lot of aimless (and in my view bad) exercises in pointless cheeky gangsterism like Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Killing Zoe, and Tarantino's own Death Proof. Style over substance, in my opinion, but I respect yours as much as it mystifies me and, yes, produces audiences with an appetite for Michael Bay.
shareThat sounds a lot friendlier than your previous reply! :)
It all comes down to taste. I grew up watching films from the '30s and '40s, and later got very much into the silent era. For me, those will always be the glory days, and likely never be topped. I don't think there were no good films made between 1960 and 1994, but overall I think it was a pretty bad time for film, and even some of the best ones have some significant flaws. I attribute it to a lack of studio oversight, where directors were allowed free rein, and Hollywood hadn't quite found its stride yet.
While the studio system was still in place, there was a method to filmmaking that had been fine-tuned, and it worked well. It took a long time for that to come to be the case after the '50s. Pulp Fiction really seemed like a turning point, because after that there seemed to be a balance between director and studio that hadn't been there before.
There are awful films from all eras as well as great ones, but for my taste, films before the '60s work, as do modern films, but most of those in between just seem amateurish.
Even when I think of my favorite filmmakers, they all seem to fall into those two eras... Preston Sturges, Howard Hawks, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, the Coen Brothers. Martin Scorsese may be the one exception, or perhaps Woody Allen, though I think most of his best work came later in his career.
Anyway, I like plenty of '70s and '80s films, but as a whole I don't rate the cinema of that time the way I do the older and newer stuff.