list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Flash Gordon on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Flash_Gordon/11885/default.aspx Title: Flash Gordon
Year: 1980
Director: Mike Hodges
Plot: Heroic earthling Flash Gordon saves the world from the nefarious Ming the Merciless in this lavish, intentionally campy adaptation of the famous sci-fi comic strip. The story is as basic as space operas get: Ming (Max von Sydow) has developed a plan to destroy the Earth, and Flash (Sam J. Jones) and his attractive companion Dale Arden (Melody Anderson) are called upon to stop him. Along the way, Flash must battle Ming's goons and the temptations of a luscious space princess. Previously the basis for a more straight-faced 1930s adventure serial, Flash's story is here mined for exaggerated, cartoon humor by screenwriter Lorenzo Semple Jr., a central figure in the similarly campy 1960s Batman television series. The simplistic plot mainly serves as an excuse for spectacular sets and cartoonish action sequences, all set to an appropriately over-the-top rock score by Queen. Certainly not a film to turn to for serious excitement, fine performances, or character development, Flash Gordon has nevertheless developed an appreciative cult of fans who admire the film's humorous approach and the detailed, colorful production design. ~ Judd Blaise, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 17
Number of Lists: 19
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Mon, 11 May 2009 14:18:15 GMTFlash Gordon1980Mike HodgesHeroic earthling Flash Gordon saves the world from the nefarious Ming the Merciless in this lavish, intentionally campy adaptation of the famous sci-fi comic strip. The story is as basic as space operas get: Ming (<a href="/players/P____69424/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Max von Sydow</a>) has developed a plan to destroy the Earth, and Flash (Sam J. Jones) and his attractive companion Dale Arden (<a href="/players/P_____1583/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Melody Anderson</a>) are called upon to stop him. Along the way, Flash must battle Ming's goons and the temptations of a luscious space princess. Previously the basis for a more straight-faced 1930s adventure serial, Flash's story is here mined for exaggerated, cartoon humor by screenwriter Lorenzo Semple Jr., a central figure in the similarly campy 1960s <a href=/films/2476/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Batman</a> television series. The simplistic plot mainly serves as an excuse for spectacular sets and cartoonish action sequences, all set to an appropriately over-the-top rock score by Queen. Certainly not a film to turn to for serious excitement, fine performances, or character development, Flash Gordon has nevertheless developed an appreciative cult of fans who admire the film's humorous approach and the detailed, colorful production design. ~ Judd Blaise, All Movie Guide17Tag Target (>10)19412http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u37079dl2ox.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Flash_Gordon/11885/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/1/41969.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/1/2009 7:46:21 PM
Body: New York Jets star quarterback "Flash Gordon" (Sam J. Jones) and "Dale Arden" (Melody Anderson, in her motion picture debut) are kidnapped by "Dr. Hans Zarkov" (Topol) when the plane they are passangers on crash lands near his home/observatory. The three rocket to a planet known as "Mongo," which is lead by a blood-thirsty dictator named "Ming" (Max von Sydow), who is responsible for sending the Earth's moon out of its orbit and send it crashing into the planet which it orbits. On "Mongo," the three cross paths with the planet's various inhabitants which are forced to pay homage to "Ming" or be killed. Some of the aliens are willing to help "Gordon" overthrow the dictator, while others will not out of fear of retaliation if the plans fail. The story itself is well written, but the dialogue has some weak moments which hinder the performances of the actors at times. One thing you will notice right off is the spectacular costumes of the "Mongo" population. Many of which wear vivid colors, or armor of what appear to be various metals. Much of the scenery, though obviously low budget, are pretty much the same -- especially in the reception room where we first meet "Ming" and the rest of the "Mongo" inhabitants. The performances are real good, but are hindered by the script, which at times has poorly written dialogue. However, the actors do their best to blend the bad dialogue into their lines to get you to miss them. But be warned, some of the performances are over-the-top and comes across as campy. The soundtrack is written and performed by the legendary rock band Queen. The theme song, to me, doesn't really sound like a typical Queen tune, but it's a great anthem for the title character. The music is near perfect for the action scenes, which are a little weak at times. The movie is obviously low budget, but the directors did do a good job with the sometimes cramped quarters or the scenes that were hindered by the budget. The sound mixer, on the other hand, did only a fair job. There are times where the sound did not mix well with the film -- one instance is when "Princess Aura" talks, and it appears that the sound was added over the footage much like when old Japanese monster movies are dubbed-over with English. Timothy Dalton, who plays "Prince Barin," is perfect in his role and works really well at making you believe "Barin" dislikes and distrusts "Gordon". Another perfect casting is of von Sydow, who makes "Ming" come to life very nicely. Other performance are also worth mention only because they are so overboard -- in a good way. Despite the pretty forgettable flaws, "Flash Gordon" is worth looking at as a solid second choice rental. If you are a fan of the character, or of B-Movies, this one is well worth looking at.
]]>Fri, 01 May 2009 23:46:21 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/1/2009 7:46:21 PMNew York Jets star quarterback "Flash Gordon" (Sam J. Jones) and "Dale Arden" (Melody Anderson, in her motion picture debut) are kidnapped by "Dr. Hans Zarkov" (Topol) when the plane they are passangers on crash lands near his home/observatory. The three rocket to a planet known as "Mongo," which is lead by a blood-thirsty dictator named "Ming" (Max von Sydow), who is responsible for sending the Earth's moon out of its orbit and send it crashing into the planet which it orbits. On "Mongo," the three cross paths with the planet's various inhabitants which are forced to pay homage to "Ming" or be killed. Some of the aliens are willing to help "Gordon" overthrow the dictator, while others will not out of fear of retaliation if the plans fail. The story itself is well written, but the dialogue has some weak moments which hinder the performances of the actors at times. One thing you will notice right off is the spectacular costumes of the "Mongo" population. Many of which wear vivid colors, or armor of what appear to be various metals. Much of the scenery, though obviously low budget, are pretty much the same -- especially in the reception room where we first meet "Ming" and the rest of the "Mongo" inhabitants. The performances are real good, but are hindered by the script, which at times has poorly written dialogue. However, the actors do their best to blend the bad dialogue into their lines to get you to miss them. But be warned, some of the performances are over-the-top and comes across as campy. The soundtrack is written and performed by the legendary rock band Queen. The theme song, to me, doesn't really sound like a typical Queen tune, but it's a great anthem for the title character. The music is near perfect for the action scenes, which are a little weak at times. The movie is obviously low budget, but the directors did do a good job with the sometimes cramped quarters or the scenes that were hindered by the budget. The sound mixer, on the other hand, did only a fair job. There are times where the sound did not mix well with the film -- one instance is when "Princess Aura" talks, and it appears that the sound was added over the footage much like when old Japanese monster movies are dubbed-over with English. Timothy Dalton, who plays "Prince Barin," is perfect in his role and works really well at making you believe "Barin" dislikes and distrusts "Gordon". Another perfect casting is of von Sydow, who makes "Ming" come to life very nicely. Other performance are also worth mention only because they are so overboard -- in a good way. Despite the pretty forgettable flaws, "Flash Gordon" is worth looking at as a solid second choice rental. If you are a fan of the character, or of B-Movies, this one is well worth looking at. http://www.spout.com/groups/Grew_up_in_the_80_s/Re_First_film_you_remember_seeing_in_the_theatre/38/36305/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Kowalski76
Post To: Grew up in the 80's
Post Date: 10/14/2008 4:18:20 PM
Body: I'm pretty sure I saw films at the cinema before it, but the first I remember is Flash Gordon (1980). I loved it back then, now I loathe it's cardboard set cheeziness. Mike Hodges made that! The same Mike Hodges that made Get Carter. Mike Hodges made a film with Blue Peter's 'Peter Duncan'! I wonder if Peter helped build the set. It's amazing what he could do with some double sided sticky-tape and an empty fairy liquid bottle.
]]>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:18:20 GMTKowalski76Grew up in the 80's10/14/2008 4:18:20 PMI'm pretty sure I saw films at the cinema before it, but the first I remember is Flash Gordon (1980). I loved it back then, now I loathe it's cardboard set cheeziness. Mike Hodges made that! The same Mike Hodges that made Get Carter. Mike Hodges made a film with Blue Peter's 'Peter Duncan'! I wonder if Peter helped build the set. It's amazing what he could do with some double sided sticky-tape and an empty fairy liquid bottle. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/9/34950.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/26/29971.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/26/2008 7:03:21 PM
Body: Flash Gordon was obviously made to cash in on the sci-fi boom that was begun by Star Wars, but it belong to an earlier era- the high camp of the 70's, personified by The Rocky Horror Picture Show. As such, it's a hard movie to review because it doesn't really tried to be good in the traditional sense- it aspires to be trashy fun, and the two star review is because it only partially succeeds on that level. The original Flash Gordon was for years the most popular science fiction in the country. Begun as a comic strip, it reached iconic statues from three movies serials starring Buster Crabbe, and had numerous TV and cartoon adoptions. George Lucas tried to make his own movie version in the early seventies, but he was unable to get the rights, so he made his own science fiction saga. As the documentary on the DVD states, Flash Gordon has not had the staying power of other cultural icons, such as Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps that's because there's not much depth to the character and Flash seems perennially locked in the 1930's in a bad way. Anyway, the film rights to the comic strip (which ran until 2003) were acquired by Dino De Laurentis who provided the film with a much lower budget than the big budget sci-fi movies he was cashing in on. That's okay, because it probably works better that the Hawk-men, for example, have wings that look like plastic. Following the plot of a movie like this would pointless, so suffice it to say that it involves football star Flash (Sam J. Jones) who is pitted against Ming the Merciless (Max Von Sydow) who wants to destroy the Earth and marry his girlfriend, Dale Arden (Melody Anderson). On his quest, he is aided by Hawk-men, who have wings that don't work, and the Frigians, who dress like Robin Hood. I remember the cartoon series having Lion-men as well, but unfortunately the movie eliminates these. There is a lot (and I mean a lot) a kinky sexual innuendo. Most of the space ships look phallic and character's are consistently getting tied up by people dressed totally in leather. There's a lot of gay references as well, and hunky Jones often ends up with his shirt and pants off. The music is by Queen, which I have to admit was about a perfect choice for this kind of material. But is the movie worth watching? Well, the cast, including Jones, is surprisingly good, playing everything exactly right. They all seem to get what kind of movie there's in. The picture is fun for a while but then it stars to get boring only to pick up towards the end, when director Hodges stages a surprisingly beautiful attack on Ming's ship with the Hawk-men with very funny visual gag involving a tribute to Flash. But for me, it wasn't enough. The movie is just wears out its welcome, and even talking through the boring parts the entertainment value started to give. I can't recommend the movie for that reason. Interesting bit of trivia: According to Wikipedia, the movie did badly in every country accept Britain, where it was massive hit and is still one of 100 highest grossing films of all time. I have no idea why. Flash Gordon (1980)
]]>Mon, 26 May 2008 23:03:21 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/26/2008 7:03:21 PM Flash Gordon was obviously made to cash in on the sci-fi boom that was begun by Star Wars, but it belong to an earlier era- the high camp of the 70's, personified by The Rocky Horror Picture Show. As such, it's a hard movie to review because it doesn't really tried to be good in the traditional sense- it aspires to be trashy fun, and the two star review is because it only partially succeeds on that level. The original Flash Gordon was for years the most popular science fiction in the country. Begun as a comic strip, it reached iconic statues from three movies serials starring Buster Crabbe, and had numerous TV and cartoon adoptions. George Lucas tried to make his own movie version in the early seventies, but he was unable to get the rights, so he made his own science fiction saga. As the documentary on the DVD states, Flash Gordon has not had the staying power of other cultural icons, such as Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps that's because there's not much depth to the character and Flash seems perennially locked in the 1930's in a bad way. Anyway, the film rights to the comic strip (which ran until 2003) were acquired by Dino De Laurentis who provided the film with a much lower budget than the big budget sci-fi movies he was cashing in on. That's okay, because it probably works better that the Hawk-men, for example, have wings that look like plastic. Following the plot of a movie like this would pointless, so suffice it to say that it involves football star Flash (Sam J. Jones) who is pitted against Ming the Merciless (Max Von Sydow) who wants to destroy the Earth and marry his girlfriend, Dale Arden (Melody Anderson). On his quest, he is aided by Hawk-men, who have wings that don't work, and the Frigians, who dress like Robin Hood. I remember the cartoon series having Lion-men as well, but unfortunately the movie eliminates these. There is a lot (and I mean a lot) a kinky sexual innuendo. Most of the space ships look phallic and character's are consistently getting tied up by people dressed totally in leather. There's a lot of gay references as well, and hunky Jones often ends up with his shirt and pants off. The music is by Queen, which I have to admit was about a perfect choice for this kind of material. But is the movie worth watching? Well, the cast, including Jones, is surprisingly good, playing everything exactly right. They all seem to get what kind of movie there's in. The picture is fun for a while but then it stars to get boring only to pick up towards the end, when director Hodges stages a surprisingly beautiful attack on Ming's ship with the Hawk-men with very funny visual gag involving a tribute to Flash. But for me, it wasn't enough. The movie is just wears out its welcome, and even talking through the boring parts the entertainment value started to give. I can't recommend the movie for that reason. Interesting bit of trivia: According to Wikipedia, the movie did badly in every country accept Britain, where it was massive hit and is still one of 100 highest grossing films of all time. I have no idea why. Flash Gordon (1980) http://www.spout.com/blogs/jlgdrd/archive/2007/7/2/12863.aspx Post By: jlgdrd
Post To: Wicked Fun
Post Date: 7/2/2007 4:08:00 PM
Body: Sleek, evanescent, shadowy, with a low-gloss platinum luster reminiscent of Wender's Wings of Desire, Kerry Conran's Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a grand ride, full of whiz-bang gimmickry and homage to the glory days of retro-Science Fiction. An attempt to refine, fulfill, and exceed the spirit of wonder and astonishment that permeated comic books, novels, and movies like The Day the Earth Stood Still, Flash Gordon, and Metropolis. Funny though, once you start making a list of Sky Captain's numerous visual allusions, it's hard to know where to stop — Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Star Wars, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and Veronica Voss — with its expressionist use of high relief, dusty sunlight, and columns of smoke. It's all tossed into the mix, with no attempt at concealment. And all things considered it works surprisingly well. Despite the borrowed structures of its milieu, there are no apparent seams. It has a look all its own. Many of the establishing or epiphany shots are stupendous, with a depth of field that is mesmerizing - rich, muted, elaborate backdrops you could gaze into forever. The film opens with the arrival of enigmatic German scientist Dr. Jenkins and the invasion of flying robots in New York City. Reporter Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) acquires some mysterious vials in a rendezvous with Dr. Jenkins and seeks out her ex-boyfriend and fighter pilot, Joe Sullivan a.k.a. Sky Captain. Joe (Jude Law) is still pissed at Polly for sabotaging his plane in an act of jealousy, but she uses blueprints as leverage to secure a "sweetheart" deal. Equipped with souped-up flight transportation spiffier than the Mach-5, Joe and Polly set out on the trail of the nefarious Dr. Totenkopf. Along the way they are assisted by Jenkins, Joe's protégé, Dex (Giovanni Ribisi), and Captain "Franky" Cook (Angelina Jolie). Jolie is well cast, delivering the goods with wry gusto. Ribisi did not get top billing (a crime in my book) despite the fact he has more screen time than Jolie. His incredible talent often gets overlooked, because his subtlety doesn't pull him over the top. He lets the camera come to him. A film of this sort hinges on special effects and salient impact and when Sky Captain falters — when it lapses in judgment — the problems are with these aspects. There's an air-battle scene, pretty early in the film, where Joe (with Polly tagging along) returns to New York to subdue airships that resemble birds of prey. In the midst of this harrowing struggle, Polly nags and antagonizes Joe, in an attempt to heighten an already tense event and add some comic relief. It doesn't work. Which isn't to say it couldn't. For some reason, the rhythms are all wrong. This kind of sequence is like a symphony, balancing visual information with dialogue, sounds, music, and so on. When it doesn't hold together, the effect is discordant, queasy. Conran throws so much at us, we end up being distracted rather than consumed. Fortunately, as the film continues to unwind, he begins to find his balance.There's a certain degree of hokiness (part and parcel of this genre), an irresistible corniness that Conran makes no apologies for, making Sky Captain that much more giddy and gleeful. The gaps in logic, ominous musical cues, flying robots, and "Mysterious Woman" (dressed like a dominatrix seal with goggles) all seem perfectly acceptable, because it's consistent with the loopy tone. But the acting technique used by Law and Paltrow feels completely out of sync with the rest of the film. You can tell by the content the writing is funny, but there's no snap, no timing. Compare it to the work of Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tim Robbins in The Hudsucker Proxy. Or Loy And Powell in The Thin Man series. Law and Paltrow (or Conran) don't have the first clue about veiled romantic banter; they deliver it like they're doing Chekhov or Shaw. It may sound more natural, but it's inappropriate for the material. I want to give Kerry Conran credit for the women's roles in Sky Captain. To use the current terminology, there's a lot of empowerment built into the script. You can tell he's using Paltrow's looks in an ambiguous way - she's capable without losing her "damsel" appeal. But there's something else too, the use of makeup and Paltrow's semi-crooked mouth, that make her look almost boyish. Captain (Francesca) Cook and "The Mysterious Woman" (Bai Ling) deliver an even stronger message. Cook leads an all-female squadron with aplomb and Bai Ling is menacing and formidable. In a sense Conran is re-writing the sci-fi film genre, but it seems plausible. It gibes with the visionary nature of a dream of life in the future.
]]>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:08:00 GMTjlgdrdWicked Fun7/2/2007 4:08:00 PMSleek, evanescent, shadowy, with a low-gloss platinum luster reminiscent of Wender's Wings of Desire, Kerry Conran's Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a grand ride, full of whiz-bang gimmickry and homage to the glory days of retro-Science Fiction. An attempt to refine, fulfill, and exceed the spirit of wonder and astonishment that permeated comic books, novels, and movies like The Day the Earth Stood Still, Flash Gordon, and Metropolis. Funny though, once you start making a list of Sky Captain's numerous visual allusions, it's hard to know where to stop &mdash; Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Star Wars, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and Veronica Voss &mdash; with its expressionist use of high relief, dusty sunlight, and columns of smoke. It's all tossed into the mix, with no attempt at concealment. And all things considered it works surprisingly well. Despite the borrowed structures of its milieu, there are no apparent seams. It has a look all its own. Many of the establishing or epiphany shots are stupendous, with a depth of field that is mesmerizing - rich, muted, elaborate backdrops you could gaze into forever. The film opens with the arrival of enigmatic German scientist Dr. Jenkins and the invasion of flying robots in New York City. Reporter Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) acquires some mysterious vials in a rendezvous with Dr. Jenkins and seeks out her ex-boyfriend and fighter pilot, Joe Sullivan a.k.a. Sky Captain. Joe (Jude Law) is still pissed at Polly for sabotaging his plane in an act of jealousy, but she uses blueprints as leverage to secure a "sweetheart" deal. Equipped with souped-up flight transportation spiffier than the Mach-5, Joe and Polly set out on the trail of the nefarious Dr. Totenkopf. Along the way they are assisted by Jenkins, Joe's prot&eacute;g&eacute;, Dex (Giovanni Ribisi), and Captain "Franky" Cook (Angelina Jolie). Jolie is well cast, delivering the goods with wry gusto. Ribisi did not get top billing (a crime in my book) despite the fact he has more screen time than Jolie. His incredible talent often gets overlooked, because his subtlety doesn't pull him over the top. He lets the camera come to him. A film of this sort hinges on special effects and salient impact and when Sky Captain falters &mdash; when it lapses in judgment &mdash; the problems are with these aspects. There's an air-battle scene, pretty early in the film, where Joe (with Polly tagging along) returns to New York to subdue airships that resemble birds of prey. In the midst of this harrowing struggle, Polly nags and antagonizes Joe, in an attempt to heighten an already tense event and add some comic relief. It doesn't work. Which isn't to say it couldn't. For some reason, the rhythms are all wrong. This kind of sequence is like a symphony, balancing visual information with dialogue, sounds, music, and so on. When it doesn't hold together, the effect is discordant, queasy. Conran throws so much at us, we end up being distracted rather than consumed. Fortunately, as the film continues to unwind, he begins to find his balance.There's a certain degree of hokiness (part and parcel of this genre), an irresistible corniness that Conran makes no apologies for, making Sky Captain that much more giddy and gleeful. The gaps in logic, ominous musical cues, flying robots, and "Mysterious Woman" (dressed like a dominatrix seal with goggles) all seem perfectly acceptable, because it's consistent with the loopy tone. But the acting technique used by Law and Paltrow feels completely out of sync with the rest of the film. You can tell by the content the writing is funny, but there's no snap, no timing. Compare it to the work of Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tim Robbins in The Hudsucker Proxy. Or Loy And Powell in The Thin Man series. Law and Paltrow (or Conran) don't have the first clue about veiled romantic banter; they deliver it like they're doing Chekhov or Shaw. It may sound more natural, but it's inappropriate for the material. I want to give Kerry Conran credit for the women's roles in Sky Captain. To use the current terminology, there's a lot of empowerment built into the script. You can tell he's using Paltrow's looks in an ambiguous way - she's capable without losing her "damsel" appeal. But there's something else too, the use of makeup and Paltrow's semi-crooked mouth, that make her look almost boyish. Captain (Francesca) Cook and "The Mysterious Woman" (Bai Ling) deliver an even stronger message. Cook leads an all-female squadron with aplomb and Bai Ling is menacing and formidable. In a sense Conran is re-writing the sci-fi film genre, but it seems plausible. It gibes with the visionary nature of a dream of life in the future. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7162

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1004

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT71621691004Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 494

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 139

]]>Mon, 25 May 2009 14:36:30 GMT49454139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/football/MemberTagFilms.aspxfootball
Number of films tagged: 1216

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 77

]]>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:51:35 GMT12163977Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rescue/MemberTagFilms.aspxrescue
Number of films tagged: 4080

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 142

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:36 GMT408031142Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scientist/MemberTagFilms.aspxscientist
Number of films tagged: 1408

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 77

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:47:27 GMT14083177Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/campy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcampy
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 34

]]>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:16:12 GMT303034Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/goodvsevil/MemberTagFilms.aspxgoodvsevil
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 67

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT7422567Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/spacecraft/MemberTagFilms.aspxspacecraft
Number of films tagged: 332

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 42

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:02:39 GMT3321742Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/queen/MemberTagFilms.aspxqueen
Number of films tagged: 18

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 20

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:01:50 GMT181120Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/emperor/MemberTagFilms.aspxemperor
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 10

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:48:03 GMT226910Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/wings/MemberTagFilms.aspxwings
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:02:59 GMT3066Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/concubine/MemberTagFilms.aspxconcubine
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:46:59 GMT1644Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sobaditsgood/MemberTagFilms.aspxsobaditsgood
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:26:48 GMT444Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/outerspace/MemberTagFilms.aspxouterspace
Number of films tagged: 208

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:04:40 GMT20833Tag