the groundhog day project

I was thinking ( again ) of watching Blade Runner for this blog. It was on my 1982 list, even though that was a bit of a cheat. I did not see it in the theater, and am not sure at what point I first saw it on cable. I did make a habit of watching it whenever I caught it, though, and bought myself a VHS copy when I was a teen. It's the kind of film that made an impact but doesn't quite fit this deconstruction. I cut it from the list while I was driving home from seeing the Oscar-nominated documentary Faces Places . I was going to skip ahead a movie to watch something more fun today, but apparently I neglected to borrow that fun one on DVD. It may actually come late in the order instead of early. So then, we arrive at today's film which, honestly, might be enjoyable. It has been a long time since I've watched it, and I only really remember it in fits and spurts. The film is An Officer and a Gentleman . Roger's words give me hope: "An Officer and a Gentlem...

So, the structure could use some work, but the performances are amazing. That's the short version. Roger Ebert writes in his review about leaving "the theater feeling good and warm, and with a certain resolve to try to mend my own relationships and learn to start listening better." On Golden Pond is mostly the tale of an old couple, still adorable with one another, and the "grandson" they take in at their lakeside summer home. The father/daughter stuff is there, mostly under the surface, but it's almost apt-- almost --that it remains off to the side, not quite... there. Because, that's how it is for Chelsea and, especially, for Norman. For Chelsea, her problems with her father are deep-seated, so much a fundamental piece of who she is (especially when she comes back to Golden Pond) that it makes sense she has trouble talking about it, expressing it, confronting it. For Norman, his failing memory can't help matters. Plus, he doesn't even realiz...

But nevermind the personal rambling. I am sure there will be more later. For now, what about the movie? Vincent Canby, writing for the New York Times , calls the original Broadway play "processed American cheese, smooth, infinitely spreadable and bland, with color added by the actors. The screen version... Is not much different in any superficial way." I immediately think of Homer Simpson sitting up all night eating an entire package of American cheese, not because it is particularly delicious but because it just so damn edible. Canby's choice of "smooth" is a good descriptor. To be fair, Canby suggests that the film's cast "add more than color to this pasteurized product. 'On Golden Pond' now has the bite of a good old cheddar." It's not like Canby dislikes the film. Leave that to David Kehr, writing for the Chicago Reader , who calls the film "the cinematic equivalent of shrink-wrapping, in which all of the ideas, feelings, ch...

There was an asterisk next to a paranthetical "sort of" right at the end of yesterday 's entry, my seventh and last with Halloween II . I had intended to add a footnote, but with the "works cited" bit, a footnote would have looked odd. So, now that footnote: * Not that it is an interesting footnote. I just like to imagine sometimes that there is some reader here that pays close attention to the details and loves to nitpick when I get things wrong. I called Halloween II my final film for 1981, but it turns out, when I was sorting out my 1982 movies the other day, I figured out that the release date I had for today's film was wrong. On Golden Pond was released in December 1981, not January 1982. Or maybe--and I'm writing this on the eve of the Oscar nominations for 2017--it had a limited release in December, a wider release in January. I'm sure Hollywood distributors were playing that game back then, throwing their award-hopeful films right into the...