MovieChat Forums > Into the Night (1985) Discussion > not a fan

not a fan

posted 14 years ago by Towel Dude
15 replies | jump to latest

I love Landis' Animal House, Blues Brothers, American Werewolf in London, and Trading Places, and I remember reading a rave review in Time magazine when this movie came out in Feb 1985, So I went opening weekend with high hopes. Massive disappointment quickly ensued. Uninteresting, boring, and not the least bit funny. Couldn't care less about Goldblum's insomnia problems, or Pfieffer's plight. Only thing that kept me thru to final credits was nonstop parade of cameos of directors and others like Jim Henson and Rick Baker. Landis' own part as Persian assassin was lame. Landis shouldve cast Kathyrn Harrold in Michelle's part. She was the only interesting character in the movie. Jump to this past week. HBO is showing the movie, Just watched again, to see if my opinion will change after 25 years. No change. Movie is as stilted and dead in the water as ever.

B U D W E I S E R

[–] uvl 14 years ago

That's a shame.

[–] petergatt 14 years ago

I was watching this yesterday and it struck me take away most of the "funny" bits and it is very similar in structure to a Hitchcock movie

[–] UtopianUK 14 years ago

I watched it for the first time a few days ago, and I now regard it as a classic film. I felt the story flowed perfectly. The cast were great, the story well written, and it's a whole lot of fun. It's an unusal film in many ways, because one minute it seems like a comedy, then it has serious moments, and it's also violent. It's definitely an eclectic creation.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Farshnoshket 13 years ago

Dude, you really missed the big picture here.

The film's a classic.

Can't really say the same about you.

[–] jac91604 13 years ago

Obviously the movie went over the OP's head. They prefer films where you don't have to pay attention or think too much.

Nothing wrong with liking "Animal House", but come on. How about something were you have to follow a plot?

This was a great film, it had comedy, drama, action and was current(for the 80s) and also felt like a throwback to the 40s at times.

A very underrated and not well know film.

Probably the directors best work.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

This is the standard template, almost like a form letter, whenever someone doesn't like a film that someone else does like. The person who does like it accuses the other of being an unthinking clod who cannot appreciate anything with depth or subtlety. The only part you forgot was to invite him to go watch Michael Bay movies instead.

Problem in this case is that if you go and look at Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see that critics didn't like this either. Roger Ebert only gave it one star, which is really low for him. There are many other critics who you'll find praising films that require a lot of attention and thought, but they didn't like this one.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

The OP and I are definitely on the same wavelength.

Uninteresting, boring, and not the least bit funny. Couldn't care less about Goldblum's insomnia problems, or Pfieffer's plight.

Landis shouldve cast Kathyrn Harrold in Michelle's part. She was the only interesting character in the movie.

And then Landis kills her off in another one of the film's fun-filled highlights.

Just watched again, to see if my opinion will change after 25 years. No change. Movie is as stilted and dead in the water as ever.

... critics didn't like this either.

They pointed their collective noses to the wind and all smelt a cinematic turd. They were right.🐭

[–] toastyryder 8 years ago

Well this is a late reply but, what exactly about "Into the Night" would go over someone's head? I mean it's a pretty simple "MacGuffin" type plot revolving around some stolen jewels mixed with wacky 80s humor, is there some deeper Godard-style commentary on existential consumerism or something I'm missing out on here?

While it's a decent movie, I can't say it's up there with Landis movies like American Werewolf in London, Trading Places or Coming to America.. but it definitely beats out Spies Like Us & The Stupids, so it's got that going for it.

And meanwhile on Mushroom Hill this happened https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IlnOiJWUdo

[–] dkgambler 12 years ago

My thoughts exactly, saw this not too long after it came out, remembered it as being boring. Saw it on my DirecTV menu, nothing else on, figured "Hmmm, maybe I was wrong back then." Nope. Still just as boring as it was the first time.

[–] MrBigglesworth999 11 years ago

That's a shame you didn't like it. I thoroughly enjoyed it: Good plot, black humour, many cameos, and BB King!

[–] toallitas 11 years ago

I liked the two leads, but the movie is uneven and too long. The tone alternates between antic and sinister. It was kind of odd and didn't work well. Also the plot is hard to follow.

Apparently the prostitute who propositioned them in front of the Frederick's of Hollywood store was Michelle Pfeiffer's sister, Dedee Pfeiffer. She was in Falling Down, in the Whammy Burger scene.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

".. the movie is uneven and too long"

Too long for what?

I think it's good that a movie isn't made with a pre-set format, formula or mold in mind, even regardless to length.

It doesn't matter if a movie is 5 hours or 29 minutes, if it's good, or at least it has something to offer the viewer, whether it's atmosphere, story, humor, jokes, performances, music, etc.

Different viewers may experience the same movie in different ways - what's "too long" for you, might be 'too short' for someone else.

Uneven? Why would anyone want to watch 'even' movies? What's the excitement in that?

I don't want to be too harsh, I just want to make a point, so maybe it's better of I describe how I experienced this movie the first time. I know it's not a brilliant movie on any particular level, but it has good musics, can be a bit unpredictable at times, has funny humor, good performances, actor charisma, 1980s atmosphere, and some intense and tense moments.

For some reason, I love the scenes, where Ed is driving his 1980s car around the city at night.

Ok, so it was winter sometime in the 1990s. I didn't have anything to do, and the darkness and cold of the wintery imprisonment started to get to me, and I was longing for summer, wondering how much more I can take the awful winter.

It was very late at night, and I was feeling trapped and anxious, melancholic and awful. I turned on the television, and there it was; something I had not seen before.

Jeff Goldblum was walking in his apartment, putting on clothes, and I wondered what the heck I was watching. I was ready to change the channel or turn it off, but decided to see what this thing was, first.

It didn't seem to be anything too interesting, but the 'driving at night'-scene felt somewhat soothing, considering my difficult internal feeling. When Michelle jumped on the hood of Ed's car, my interest was aroused - what the heck is this? A movie?

So I kept watching..

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I forgot all about my winter-anxiety, while watching this. The story seemed interesting, I couldn't predict what was going to happen, the musics were great, I liked Jeff Goldblum's subtle but powerful presence, and things kept happening that kept me on my toes.

This movie elevated me from 'winter blues' for a moment, and it was full of interesting inspiration, it had such an immersion, for awhile, I was away from the winter, and afterwards, I could process the story in my mind for a long time, and it was just that much easier to wait for the spring because of this movie.

This movie had the power to leave a powerful impact in my life, and it's easy to always remember that. Now, maybe it wasn't because the movie is a product of a genius, maybe the movie was just what I needed at that time - being in the right place at the right time.

But it was a 'different' movie from the usual stuff I had seen around that time, and I got a lot ouf of the movie.

For me, for my particular 'movie-need' at that time, this movie was 100% perfect. It wasn't too long. It wasn't 'uneven' (whatEVER this is supposed to mean - I wouldn't WANT any movie to be 'even' - that sounds like a recipe for boredom). I liked what happened, and how it happened, and it gave me hope - perhaps something interesting will happen in my life some day, too.

From this story, you might realize a movie can't be just "too long" in an absolute sense. Only in a relative sense. When the movie ended, I wanted for more.

Please learn to understand that movies can serve a purpose for someone, even if they don't serve a purpose for you. They might be the 'right frequency' for someone, even if you can't tune into that frequency, and thus can't appreciate it.

This may not be a 'good movie' in an absolute term - but it was the perfect movie for me, and I enjoy watching it from time to time. There's nothing seriously wrong with it. And the 'unevenness' just adds to the unpredictability and excitement.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 4 years ago

No film with Michelle Pfeiffer nude is boring. “I’m one of the bad guys.” Amazing cast of actors and directors. David fucking Bowie! Rich old guys getting blown and fucked in the Men’s Room?! Title song by BB King?! What are you? Dead?

One of my favorite movies. I am comforted and soothed that a dipstick like you dislikes it.

On the other hand, American Werepup and Coming To America suck ass.