Good Movie For It's Day.


Everyone who has a computer and a keyboard thinks they're a movie critic nowadays. It's so easy to badmouth any movie with a few words but can't explain why a movie was so bad as they describe.

1. Mazes And Monsters was shot in 1982. So, to review this movie, you have to go back to that era. Understanding that time, knowing about the level of special effects (or the lack of in this movie), and so on.

2. Tom Who? Actors like Tom Hanks have gotten a huge lift-off to worldwide success in lateron movies. When you see him as a younger person with lesser acting skills, don't expect this to be an A-film. In fact this is a movie shot for television only, with a television budget. In that light, this is truly a great movie, very well done with relatively unknown actors and a low budget in comparisson with Hollywood movies.

3. The story is easy to follow. The world does nót stop at the borders of America. Back in 1982 in American culture, things like Mazes And Monsters and other roleplaying games, cardgames, etcetera, were very common. It is part of American culture and they are wonderfull games to play. In 1982, the rest of the world didn't understand hów some players could be drawn into any game by that much. Mazes And Monsters gives the rest of the world a beautiful, but dramatic look into that gamingworld. Compare it to nowadays (2009), where gamers from computergames lose all reality with horrible actions in real life. Mass shootings, murder, suicides; this movie was ahead of it's time.

4. Well written. The story moves well, the scenes are nicely shot and the useage of the World Trade Center as The Two Towers was a brilliant find. Once again, compliments to the writers and director. Mazes And Monsters may look a little aged by todays standards, but the storyline is still very actual; only the roleplaying is replaced by playing videogames. Who knows what will replace videogames in another 30 years?

I liked it then, and i still like it now. And i explained why.

"If we're going to be damned anyway, then let's be damned for who we really are."

reply

Oh, don't get me wrong; I LIKE the film. I just don't think it's a GOOD film, for many, many reasons:

1. The story is based on a novel that Rona Jaffe supposedly pounded out in under a week to capitalize on the case of J.D. Egbert, and frankly, it shows.

2. The script isn't all that much of an improvement. The characters are one-dimnesional, and the dialogue is so stilted it's painful. I give props to the actors--particularly Hanks and Crewson. They did what they could with the lines they were given, but in a lot of cases, that wasn't much.

3. In some cases, fairly critical exposition from the book wasn't present. We don't discover that J.J. has decided to sabotage the ongoing campaign; instead, it just appears that he thinks hurling his character into a pit is a really neato-keen idea.

4. Add to that the EXTREMELY 1982 "D&D Will Warp Your Brain!" storyline, and what you have is a movie that I view in much the same way as Plan 9 From Outer Space. Good? Not remotely. Enjoyable? Absolutely.

reply

In the end, I don't think the movie has a "D&D Will Warp Your Brain!" storyline. The mother of Tom Hank's character was actually positive about it at the end, feeling it was one thing he could cling to- watching the whole movie, it goes from the possibility that he's gone insane because of the game, which a lot of parents worried about back then, to us seeing that it's actually all about his brother.

It definitely doesn't have the greatest acting and does feel like it was rushed through production, but it has a quirky charm to it and I enjoy rewatching it every few years.

reply

I don't see how anyone can say it was good for its day...


1982 was an amazing year for kids who love movies.

Alphabetically, some of those are: Blade Runner, The Dark Crystal, ET, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Pink Floyd's The Wall, Poltergeist, The Secret of Nimh, The Thing, Tootsie, Tron... and many others.


~*~

http://www.jmberman.com

reply