Never Seen It #322: UHF

Hey, kids. Where y'wanna go? That's right. To Uncle Bloggy's Clubhouse. And boy-oh-boy, are we gonna have big fun today. We're gonna have so much fun watching 500 movies we've never seen before, we'll forget about how miserable we are, and how much life sucks, and how we're all gonna grow old and die someday.

UHF

1989

Jay Levey

Our pal Bobby M. chose this film as his "already seen it" pick for me this week, and he was nice enough to go above and beyond and send me his thoughts on the movie after a rewatch.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Bobby

I always cringe when I plan to rewatch movies (specifically comedies) that I loved growing up. Like many nerdy kids, I LOVED Weird Al, and still do. I'm not someone who cares too much about whether humor is "clean," but I will say that I think "clean" comedy is infinitely more difficult to pull off than comedy that is unrestricted in language, topics etc. (Side note: this is why I think the Muppets are peak comedy). 

I was surprised at how funny I still found this movie. 

However, with most comedies made before ~2010, there are so many cringe-worthy moments where the "joke" was related to race, body type, or intelligence (not sure where they were going with Michael Richards' character). It's frustrating rewatching this movie because SO much of it is silly bits, great physical comedy, and then BAM, a completely unnecessary joke. I still enjoyed watching it and think there is still a lot of good in this movie. 

Favorite bits:

• Emo Phillips teaching woodshop
• The 😛 face in the first scene
• Fran Drescher (just her generally, she was perfect in this)
• the guy outside the studio asking for change 

Least favorite:

• Jokes that didn't age well

4/5

~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe

I think it might be a matter of trust. You need to trust a comedian to make jokes and not make you the butt of the joke. These are just thoughts off the cuff, I haven't actually sat down and established a "trust" theory, but let's just say that it's true, that this is why certain comedians rub me the wrong way, because I'm employing self-defense mechanisms, so weary am I of being fooled with. If that's true—again, not saying it is—then Weird Al is probably the comedian I trust the most. There's something so incredibly sincere about the guy that I can't help but buy into literally whatever he's doing. Even if what he's doing isn't necessarily "funny" by the definition of "funny" that goes something like "makes me laugh."

I liked UHF more than I thought it was funny, in other words. I liked it because I believe in Weird Al and I believe in what he's trying to do. I didn't actually laugh a whole lot, but I was smiling, because it was obvious what Weird Al was doing, and I liked what he was doing, because I trust him. There's something more likeable about him than, say, Mel Brooks, which I think explains why I liked UHF more than Spaceballs, but probably laughed around the same amount for each. Oh gosh, and to explain why one is more likeable than the other would require too much self-psychoanalyzation than we have space for in this film write-up. Something about creating a comedy system so that you are in the center of it versus working outside that same system despite doing comedy in the same "tradition," and why within-the-system vs. outside-the-system would mean anything to me when evaluating likeability.

I'm probably only thinking about "why something is funny" today because we just watched Pee-wee's Big Holiday for Family Movie Night this past Friday (they have returned to Pee-wee's Big Adventure a few times since that was the FMN choice, so we figured we'd try a sequel), and I spent some time trying to answer the question "why is this funny?" after Pam and I laughed at some of the jokes. I tried to explain (stealing liberally from everything that the more accomplished comedians in my friends circle and blogroll have told me over the years) that you laugh when you expect one thing to happen and another thing happens instead, and that maybe it would be tough to laugh if you haven't been conditioned yet to expect certain things in the first place. Like when Pee-wee is like "what milkshake do you want" and Joe Manganiello is like "hmmm, let's say chocolate," and they are both like "3, 2, 1, chocolate!" I laughed at that joke, because you'd expect Pee-wee to hear "let's say chocolate" and know that Joe Manganiello is asking for a chocolate milkshake, but my expectations are upended when they both literally say the word chocolate. A dumb joke, sure, but there's humor there.

Many of the jokes were very obviously designed to be that way in UHF. They made me laugh occasionally, like when Stanley was very delicately building a barrier against the door so the mob guys couldn't come in, but the mob guys crashed through the window instead. I'm trying to picture my kids asking me why this was funny, and having to explain that you'd expect them to crash through the door. Fuck, man, this probably all comes back to the Funny Hat conversation, doesn't it? If I'm explaining the logic, then that means it's Funny Logic. If there's no logic to explain, then it's a Funny Hat.

Here's a new thought, though. What if it was intended to be Funny Logic, but is ultimately illogical? Does that make it a Funny Hat by necessity? Funny Illogic, perhaps? What I'm thinking of now is the unlikely success of the TV station that Weird Al's George Newman is running, "unlikely" because all the programming—including Stanley's kids' show—just really doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever as "succesful" programming, unlikely or not. You can say that the "expectation" of the joke is that shows like "Teach a Dog to Fly" and "Wheel of Fish" wouldn't be successful, but the "reality" of the joke is that they are successful, and thus, Funny Logic. But I think I just need to speculate at the possibility of something being so illogical that it becomes a Funny Hat anyway. Another way to put it would be to Sacrifice the Logic for the Sake of the Hat.

I mean, it's the same goddamn thing for Weird Al's music, right? There are songs that are silly for being silly's sake, and there are songs that are clever because they upend expectations. I tend to like the clever ones more. And yes, I would consider his polka covers of hit songs to be Funny Logic, since, ya know, you wouldn't expect polka version of popular pop songs to be this good, but you're expectations end up being wrong every time he pulls out that fucking accordion.

This might answer Bobby's question of "not sure where they were going with Michael Richards' character." Richards was just doing his own proto-Kramer-sized version of a Funny Hat. It was supposed to be funny because he was being silly, and for no other reason. If you start thinking about whether Weird Al was being ablist by making fun of someone who was probably mentally challenged, then you're probably assuming that this is supposed to be Funny Logic. It's not. It's just a Funny Hat. No harm, no foul, unless the harm is that it's not actually funny, in which case, all the fouls toward Michael Richards.

I did think it was charming how all these well-intentioned jokes were grafted onto a feel-good story. I think if it wasn't Weird Al attached to this thing, I might have scoffed at the generic story of the underdogs overcoming the sniveling corporate overlord. But this is Weird Al we're talking about. There's charm here. You trust this dude, that he's just out here trying to make people laugh, as opposed to tearing anything down. I didn't laugh all that much and I wasn't particularly moved by the story, but I enjoyed watching this film. That can only be because of who created it.

GRADE: 3 pukes out of 5

NEXT TIME: Another "already seen it" pick by another Film Club member, as Catherine takes us through In the Mood for Love.

Never Seen It #314: Akira

Look at what they abandoned in their panic, they were afraid! They were too scared, so they hid it away from the public. They forgot all 500 movies they'd never seen before, cast off the civilization and science we had created, and shut the lid of the Pandora's Blog they themselves had opened.

Akira

1988

Katsuhiro Otomo

Thanks to all those who took the time to share their thoughts about Akira! Check out what we had to say below.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Bobby M.

Visually, I loved Akira. I thought the visuals and sound design set an incredible atmosphere. I'm a big fan of the Cyberpunk genre (currently playing Cyberpunk 2077 on Switch), and this movie had the same issues I have with the genre as a whole—too much worldbuilding, too fast, that is tough to follow. However, the overall message that the world is complicated, the progress isn't linear, that the future might not actually be better than the present, keeps me coming back.

3.5/5

~~~~~~~~~~~

Stef

I feel like I was set up, because there is so much about a dystopian animation set Tokyo that I'm meant to like—it checks a lot of boxes for me. And the animation was so insane, one could really never reasonably dispute that. But once the thrill of the visuals wore off, I realized I didn't know what the fuck I was watching. I really tried to focus and get myself there, but the whole time I felt like there was just something key I was missing. Like an inside joke that could never be let in on because I HAD to be there. I could probably manage to muster a summary of the plot if asked, but I wouldn't feel super confident in it. I was absolutely dazzled by this movie, and doubly confused. Which is fine, but not fun.

2/5

~~~~~~~~~~~

Kait

I made the mistake of watching this film on my phone before bed, and of course did not finish it, in part because I did not set myself up for success, and also because it became a bit overwhelming for me to power through. I should've watched this on a bigger screen. I think that would've helped.

From what I did see, the animation was incredible. What a visually stunning movie filled with intricate details especially in the Neo-Tokyo cityscape. Also funny to me that it was set in future... 2019!! I enjoyed the music, too. The story, however, was so fast-paced that I had a hard time following. There was so much going on, and after reading a plot synopsis, I realized there's no way I would've kept up for the entire duration of the film. Maybe on the big screen? But also maybe not. 

2 pukes out of 5

~~~~~~~~~~

Sam

I'm squinting to figure this one out. This movie is so 1988 in all positive and negative attributes. Being almost 40 years old, the film's originality loses a bunch of luster based on me the audience member watching a bunch of movies in the interim. If I was an American teen who got access to this in like 1992, I can see my mind being blown. As it is, Akira was too plotty, grimy, and mean-spirited for me to enjoy it too much.

Honestly, this reminded me of a Marvel movie. There's characters that maybe you care about are fighting an existential threat that you spend a lot of time figuring out the plot mechanisms and rules. The end result is predictable, and the fights aren't cool enough to justify it. 

That said, I did enjoy how weird this was. The trauma of post-bomb Japan is just in their bones at this point, and their sci-fi frequently engages with the aftereffects of nuclear annihilation. The demigod super children are creepy and profound and hopeful. The military man hates the hedonistic society he is protecting. The biker gang is visceral but totally annoying, as are the revolutionaries. 

The film likely would have been more enjoyable without the whiney, high-pitched English speakers. I’m a "subs over dubs" enthusiast. I wonder if the content would have gone down easier in reading. 

Ultimately, this felt like a long X-Men episode, in tone, color, and plot. 

Three stars

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe w/Sunny

Sam chose this as his Q5 film pick for a small group, but Sunny also chose Akira as his "for Joe" already-seen-it movie. So to make the nesting doll fit snug, I asked Sunny to provide some questions and prompts for my blog-post-within-a-blog-post. Here's the email I received:

"Aite dog, I shoulda gone to bed early last night but ended up just ripping through Akira again. No regrets! Here are some potential questions, maybe loosely ordered from most curious to least curious for me. I imagine you'd have talked about some/all of these in a typical write up anyway, so make your pick of whichever resonates with you!

I remember first time I finished this movie, I went 'hell yeah!' And then 'what the fuck?' I’ve talked to folks and usually get a different answer to the question I'll ask you: What do you think this movie is *actually* about?

You've seen a decent amount of Japanese cinema now (Tokyo Story, Seven Samurai). I've started to notice themes that cut across much of the post war cinema. You've also seen some anime (Miyazaki movies), though this one is 'harder anime,' lacking a better term. What aspects of Japanese culture stood out to you, if any? And, what about the various anime tropes and mores in presenting character and plot, do you find them grating or consistent with the presentation?

Part of what I like about this movie is that Neo-Tokyo is a pretty dark place in a pretty dark time. We open on our ostensible protagonist Kaneda getting into a motorcycle gang fight, and the antagonist is... Tetsuo? The Espers? The gov't of Japan? I'm curious with whom were your sympathies throughout the movie, and did you find that changed as the runtime went?

To my mind, several movies and other media felt inspired by this just through its ideas and structures. Definitely other animes, but I remember a Rick and Morty where he turns into an akira, or that Max Landis' Chronicle, which has a lot of similarities. Hell, the stupid Charles Barkley jrpg is set in Neo-New York. This movies as old as me; after watching it, do you think it feels dated or fresh? Did any of the visuals or plot points strike you as being used in other future media, or did it not click that way for you?

How about that soundtrack boiiiiiii?"

I'll cop to not knowing the answer to the first question. This feels like one of those "it could be about anything, it could be about everything, it could be about nothing" movies. The lesson that the open-endedness and mystery of it all could be part of a film's value didn't actually sink in for me until 2001: A Space Odyssey, but now I'm a proponent of it. Especially if it's clear that there is a purpose, it's just not clear to the audience.

The value is being able to assign it whatever you feel is necessary. And if you move through enough of those types of movies in an enclosed space—say, on a blog, in a film club—then the issue you run into is that the same people see the same shit in all those types of movies, over and over. Which isn't the movie's fault, it's the blogger's fault. I suppose that's the name of the game, though.

You won't be surprised to hear, for example, that I think what Akira is "about" is childhood trauma. That's just where my mind goes (it doesn't help that most of my writing these days is interrupted with phone calls and emails about potential childhood traumas all around our fair city). Tetsuo is figuratively dealing with the pain of his upbringing at a group home while literally dealing with the pain of, uh, a dark spirit taking control of his body, or something like that, I dunno. It's all very gruesome, but it's supposed to be metaphorical too, I think.

Add in the post-war Japan stuff that Sunny talked about, how there was a generation who grew up under the shadow of the atom bombing, and you can see where the collective trauma might come from. What happens when a country rebuilds after a tragedy of that scale? Doesn't it make sense that something dark and dystopian might rise from the rubble? Not saying that Japan in the latter half of the 20th century was dark or dystopian, I'm saying that there was a pervading sense of darkness and dystopia around that stage of Japan's history. Which informs the creation of this art.

In this regard, I think we can view Tetsuo and the Espers both as dual protagonists. Or, if not protagonists, then at least the sympathetic characters here. Kaneda could be viewed as a protagonist, but one removed from much of the action, a Harry Potter type who seems involved in a lot of the action without driving much of it. Tetsuo and the Espers are the beating hearts of the film, in that they are grappling with past horrors, and furthermore witnessing those horrors affect their lives and the lives of those around them in horrific ways. Tetsuo can't control his anger, Kiyoko and the boys make the decision to, uh, step into the other universe with Tetsuo, something something, I dunno I can't explain it but it seemed like a very brave action!

I like the idea of tracking the possibilities of protagonist throughout the runtime, though. There's a connection there to something I thought was interesting in the margins of Akira. It's apparently accepted that a being named Akira was the cause of the destruction of Tokyo in 1988, and in 2019, there is a sizeable portion of the population who worship Akira or look to Akira for salvation. Then it's revealed that Akira has been destroyed (so they think), and that they've been worshipping something that doesn't even exist anymore. It made me think of the joke that if aliens came down and captured America, then many of us would be thankful that someone was able to end the mayhem that is our government. To me, the way that the radicals sought to view Akira was something similar, and spoke to how truly dark times were in Neo-Tokyo.

I'm talking around some of the true structure and plot mechanics of Akira because I just didn't understand most of it. Which is a bummer, but again, says more about me than about the movie. We've already seen plenty of movies in this Film Club whose plot didn't quite make sense, and I've never been one to dismiss it because of that. If anything, I'd be more inclined to watch it again (if I had the time). I appreciated Sunny's implication that a lot of what we know as "anime" as a style of animation started here. I've seen my fair share of Pokémon episodes too, and it was interesting witnessing this style in a pretty violent and surreal adult movie. I am a total novice when it comes to the "animation style" conversation, but I'll note that it was something that stood out.

A quick note about the music: I don't think anything particularly stood out for me, but I'm really glad you mentioned it. I just generally appreciate music listening behavior that was shaped outside of something that I know. Pretty clear from evidence scattered around various sections of the blog like breadcrumbs that Sunny knows his way around an anime soundtrack, and a lot of what he hears and how he hears it was shaped through (I assume) repeats of various anime soundtracks growing up. I just like knowing different perspectives. As with movies, music exploration is a journey, and you are aided in your journey by various passersby, some who will join you for a ways, others who are headed in the opposite direction, all of whom add to the value of your quest.

What does my quest to "understanding movies" look like after watching Akira? I don't know. I can't even say that I understand it yet, if I'm being honest. But I enjoyed viewing it, and I enjoyed being confused, and I think there's plenty to pull from it, even if your largest understanding of what Akira was about is pulled from the Wikipedia page.

GRADE: 3 pukes out of 5

~~~~~~~~~~~

GROUP AVERAGE GRADE: 2.7 pukes out of 5

Fire the orbital weapon at the cryogenic storage dewar to create a singularity and meet us in the comments to talk about!!

(NEXT TIME: Joe takes Stef's suggestion to watch Spaceballs, which better be funny OR ELSE.)

Never Seen It #311: Escape from New York

In 2026, the blog rate in the United States rises four hundred percent. The once great blog of Puke on Your Birthday becomes the one maximum security prison for the entire country. A list of 500 movies we've never seen before is posted. There are no editors inside the blog, only bloggers and the worlds they have made. The rules are simple: once you go in, you don't come out.

Escape from New York

1981

John Carpenter

Thanks to all those who watched the movie and shared their thoughts! Check 'em out below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stef

I was hooked by the premise of this movie being a dystopian lit junkie, so I was thrilled with this watch. The plot was fun, but even mores o was the setting and practical effects. 

Firstly, the version of NYC presented here is what I believe flashed before the eyes of my suburban mother when I signed the lease on my first city apartment. The burned out buildings, overgrown landscapes, warlords driving disco-themed Cadillacs. Generally, it was just cool to see New York so similarly portrayed to its own reputation as a city in the '70s/'80s. A dystopian setting that's relatively implausible now, but surely could've fooled the suburban moms of this era. 

The effects in this movie were so cool, particularly the miniatures. It's possible that CGI has lowered my bar, but I was so distracted trying to figure out "how did they do that?" that I may have missed some major plot points. I was amazed at the amount of creativity and detail that had to go into some of the shots. And it paid off as far as I'm concerned.

4!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bobby M.

I first watched this movie in grad school. I wrote an essay about depictions of urban space in cinema post-urban renewal. This movie was best example of negative urban depictions at the time—NYC, the biggest city in the country, was not only facing bankruptcy, but 2,000 murders a year, and serial arsonists burning down enough housing to displace 250,000 (!!!!) residents. The NYC of today is nothing of the city when this movie was made. (In my self-indulgent grad school essay, I then moved onto how Sex and the City marked an inflection point in depictions of the city, but I'll spare you the details.) In this context, it makes sense that NYC is depicted as a literal prison run by the inmates. And outsiders who didn't understand the nuance of NYC's situation probably agreed with the inference that the city is lawless, anarchic, and dangerous. 

The movie itself is great. A comedy is supposed to make you laugh. A drama is supposed to make you cry. And a movie like this is supposed to make you say "Hell yeah." I said hell yeah a lot while watching this movie. The more you think about the plot, the less sense it makes. So don't think! Just take it for what it is. 

I think the movie shines visually, and is its best feature. I loved the "futuristic" computer graphics, and the style of prisoners in NY. Two things that stuck out to me: the more natural physique of the characters (compared to the 'roided up action stars of today) and practical effects made this movie a great watch. I'm glad I rewatched it.

4/5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brittany

My first thoughts were how it is kind of sad that we watch movies that were "new" when we were kids and now they seem like the equivalent to movies from the 1950s when we were kids. So insane how far cinematic effects and technology have come, and absolutely mind blowing how different the graphics are today. Another first thought was... I was immediately on the side of the criminals in the jail, more so than I was on the side of the President and police. No surprise there I guess. 

I have always wanted to watch this movie—I enjoyed it, for what it was. I also found humor in it... like... yeah ok, we're going to give criminals Manhattan? We'd give criminals Alabama or something like that. And the crime rate increasing 400%—clearly some arbitrarily high number that John Carpenter was like, YEAH 400% seems CRAZY, that should do it! I did enjoy the movie's simplicity—how ridiculous it was to handcuff a suitcase containing a single tape cassette to your arm?  I did think the ending had a nice twist and was really cracking up at "destroying the tape cassette."

One negative: I did feel like the relationship and character development were lacking severely, but what can you do? I was really wanting to know what happened to Snake's eye, but this movie just wasn't that deep. I bet Kurt Russell was just like, you know what would be so dope? Me wearing an EYE PATCH! and everyone was like, yesss, great idea! But yeah, I enjoyed it overall. It was an easy watch with not a lot of depth, so not too much emotional investment, which is nice sometimes.

I'll give it a 2.5

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brianna

Sci-fi is always an interesting genre, somewhat hit or miss for me depending on the movie. Interstellar? Hugest hit. Escape from New York? Unfortunately, it falls into the latter category this time around. So why?

For starters, I found the story kind of lame. On paper, I was intrigued. Manhattan is a prison! The president is kidnapped! Russell Crowe [editor's note: I'm leaving it] wears an eye patch and has a time bomb injected into his neck! But in practice? It fell majorly flat for me. Everything from the world building to the technology was lackluster on the big screen. 

If I hadn't been told that Manhattan was a prison, for example, I don't think I would've picked up on that. There were glimpses of chaos this kind of imprisonment would entail, but nothing ever quite met the intensity and claustrophobia I think one would feel if dropped into it pretty much against your will. 

I think about other older sci-fi movies, like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Alien, and am reminded about how interesting the technology looked and behaved. Even decades after those films were made, there is sometimes still futuristic about the way the sets were designed. And, listen, I'm sure it's not easy to imagine what future tech could be, but surely we can do better than a glider landing requiring a grappling hook to get the job done? 

Even the characters were very blah to me. Duke and his chandelier/disco-ball-decorated car aside, I found myself wanting more from the prisoners of the super prison. Like if we're going to say this is some high-techie future, couldn't we play that up more with these guys? Hear me out: what if Duke's gang of criminals were more like the neon gangsters of the Gotham of Batman Forever? Now THAT would've been much more fun than the vaguely homeless looking crew they rolled out instead.

In the end, it certainly wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, and let's get real, any movie with Harry Dean Stanton is worth the watch for performance alone. But good? Meh. I'd give it 2 out of 5 pukes at best. Maybe Escape from L.A. is better? Someone let me know.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Catherine

I may have endured too much hype and waited too long to dive into this cult classic, OR maybe I was just in a weird mood, but I have to say up top that this one didn't do it for me.

From the jump, the pacing seemed way off. What felt like five straight minutes of credits first thing certainly didn't help, but once we got started, I was expecting nonstop breakneck action, and my man Snake barely broke a sweat. I was bored, plain and simple. And this is coming from someone who could watch Kurt Russell read the phone book. I love him. Isaac Hayes? Sign me up. Harry Dean Stanton?? Huge fan. But it just wasn't for me.

Hey, I've dabbled in theater. I understand at least the very basics of performance. So, at the risk of stepping on some toes, I feel confident in asserting that it probably would've been wise of John Carpenter to suggest Kurt PLEASE... STOP... WHISPERING. I'm not sure who told actors that tough guys should be barely audible, but what if you let the audience in on the secret just this once? To me, the plot felt paper thin and the characters zero dimensional and I wanted so much more.

I know I'm shitting all over this so far, but I should begrudge that I didn't have a bad time watching it, I just thought it would be so much MORE. Snake Plissken has been such a dominant figure in pop culture (and the Brooklyn Halloween parties I've attended) like an elusive legend that I almost felt like I knew him. I was sure that there would be so much more to him. But we got NOTHING. He's a decorated veteran who went bad and robbed the Denver federal reserve... for some reason. That's interesting. Tell me more. What happened? What makes him tick? Can anything make the man crack a smile for the love of God?

I more than respect the idea and the premise, I just wish this movie had turned up the volume in any direction. That being said, I'd probably watch 1981 Kurt run around in an Under Armour tank top for two more hours.

2.85/5 Chandeliered Cadillacs

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sunny

SNAKE: Colonel, I'm at the drop site.

COLONEL: What's the situation Snake?

SNAKE: Looks like a single elevator down.

COLONEL: Just as I thought. Snake, the mission is to infiltrate the base at the center of the Escape from New York post and rescue the Blog EDITOR.

SNAKE: The EDITOR is in there?

COLONEL: At 5:55 AM, Michigan Upper Peninsula separatists kidnapped the EDITOR and transported him to the core of the post. We realized something was wrong by 8:02 AM. They're planning to use him as a negotiating chip, but they've threatened to exterminate him if we don't follow their directions. We have to be covert. That's why you're solo on this one Snake, and your gear is POA (procure on arrival).

SNAKE: How'd they find him? I thought the EDITOR went into hiding.

COLONEL: That was the story. Snake, when the government declared Blogging illegal and had all Bloggers systematically exterminated, the official story is the EDITOR found diplomatic immunity in Thailand. The truth is the EDITOR has been working at the Pentagon for years.

SNAKE: What?! But why? What about the government's War On Longform Writing?

COLONEL: Snake, that war's been a smokescreen for their real aims. In 1967, the CIA established operation CHAOS, telling the public they would uncover foreign influence in the country. We now know it was actually experiments into mind control and shortform shit posting.

SNAKE: I thought those experiments were just a rumor.

COLONEL: Were they Snake? Have you ever asked what happened to Borders? Books-a-Million?  

SNAKE: Amazon?

COLONEL: Once the pentagon understood shit posting was more addictive than crack, they knew they could subdue the populace through simple replacement. A Yammer here, a Twitter there. They knew that once things tipped, all they would need is one or two Bloggers producing and cut up their work into bite sized pieces.

SNAKE: But how could they just topple the old Blogging complex?

COLONEL: Simple—disrupt their communities, seed dissention, and eliminate high profile figures. Then the followers were ripe for tweeting. The British didn't have to force Opium on the Chinese, Snake; they just nudged a cart down a hill. The terrorists know the Pentagon is desperate; they probably only have a few days of banked content. If shortform dries up, civil unrest could bubble over.

SNAKE: What do I expect on the inside?

COLONEL: There are gonna be rough spots. The plot doesn't totally make sense, the pacing drags in the middle, and some characters' motivations are obtuse. The whole place feels like its age, which you might find familiar, or off-putting. It's also really, really dark and quiet in some rooms.  

SNAKE: What about the score?

COLONEL: Snake, you've got an amazing score to work with; the master is cooking in there. Russell delivers a simple but satisfying action performance. Supporting characters like Brain and Maggie and Duke and Cabbie are a delight when they show up. The plot, while kinda dumb, is also fun, and fits in the anti-Reagan vibes without being hammy. The whole conceit of the place is cool. You're not going to be burdened by backstories about eye patches or taxi medallions. And obviously the inspirations, Snake: Neuromancer, Metal Gear Solid. It's exactly the sort of movie they used to Blog about.

SNAKE: Got it. Alright, Colonel. I've got the EDITOR's tracker online. His vitals are reading 4/5 pukes. 

COLONEL: One more thing Snake: we need to get the EDITOR out in 22 hour or less. In his cargo pants is the outline for a Blog post that could put an end to the war. It could finally end the center of regressive thought and destroy podcasting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe

Fuck, dude, I love a movie with a crazy premise. Crazy in a good way, I mean. Like the type of movie that when someone asks you "what is it about" you get this smirk on your face because you know that they too are going to find it interesting and perhaps irresistible. "Crime goes up high enough that they turn the entire city of New York into a prison" is just some straight-up great shit. I know I go into these experiences trying to know as little as possible, and I had no fucking clue what Escape from New York was about until I was watching it, but I'm telling you now, if someone had clued me in on the fact that this movie was about New York City as a prison and Kurt Russell trying to escape said prison with the president, then I'd be like, holy shit, when can I press play?

As such, there are no deep themes in Escape from New York, nothing to really ponder about life. It's a popcorn flick. Nothing wrong with pulling some shit out of it based on my own feelings about life and how this popcorn flick might apply, but let's just stop and appreciate for a second the idea that some movies are just meant to be fucking fun. That sometimes it's not deeper than that. I'm actually really glad that coincidence lined up this movie and Face/Off in the same week, since they are both cut from similar cloth. Both just have fucking absurd premises, and both manage to stick the landing in terms of seeing those premises through and making them maximum fun.

My sincere hatred of New York has been well-documented on this blog, and so it tickled me that, in this world, New York is a prison. Perhaps we should view it as a metaphor? Is our real-world 2026 New York City not also a prison of sorts? I'm mostly kidding, especially now that NYC has the country's best mayor, and I'm finding that with every Mamdani headline I see, my warmth and appreciation for the people of New York grows. But yeah, fuck yeah, turn 1980s NYC into a prison, that's extremely appropriate. You know what wouldn't have happened if America had actually gone through with this genius plan? September 11th. That's right, because you left NYC open and free, you caused a terror attack to happen.

Speaking of which, I liked the idea that I was on the side of the terrorists at the beginning of this film. As far as what the rebel hijacker was saying in the intercom on Air Force One, name the lie. We can joke around about a big prison in the country's worst city, but were such a thing to actually happen, it would indeed be fascist, and racist, and deserve to be destroyed. The prison industrial complex has only gotten worse and more bloated and more powerful in the time since this movie was made. I was glad to see that the sequel to this movie had the balls to make the president the bad guy. He is, and probably always will be, so as long as presidents continue to support prisons for profit.

I try not to make a habit of criticizing aspects of movies that were absent, since that misses the point, but I'll say this: the idea of an entire human ecosystem evolving within a city-sized prison was one that intrigued me, and I wanted more of it. We saw a couple weirdo aspects to it, like the musical theater production, and soul legend Isaac Hayes as a self-appointed leader. But that wasn't enough for me. I am intrigued about what else is happening in New York Prison in the 1980s. That could be a whole different movie that I would watch. I almost wish that the sequel had revisited it, instead of moving to Los Angeles.

Wait, now that I'm typing it out... what do you think happened to the non-criminals who lived in New York City when the decision was made to convert it into a prison? Were they displaced? Did they fight back? No mention of any of this in the film. This is why you could never have an Escape from Philadelphia, because no one wants to leave, and we'd fight back to the point that it wouldn't even be worth it for the government to try to imprison us all.

I'm mostly joking. The joke is in service to my original idea that some films just do not require any level of nuanced thinking. When I start speculating on off-screen aspects of the plot, you know I've gone too far. Escape from New York doesn't require any heavy thinking. Just sit back, put your feet up, and enjoy an eye-patched Kurt Russell tote a gun around a dark, trash-filled New York (very accurate description of the city as we know it now), and shoot some bad guys.

Did anyone ever write about Russellmania on this blog? Looks like Bridget mentioned it in her Your Favorite Movie interview. She's referring to the other Sixers Sister, Maeve, who had her 29th birthday party themed as "dress as your favorite Kurt Russell." This was like eight years ago and I had seen way fewer Russell movies at that point, so I don't think many costumes registered with me. I have to assume someone was dressed as Snake Plissken though, right? An eyepatch and leather jacket would have done the trick, that's easy enough for a 20-something who just wants to get drunk as easily as possible. And you know why that would've been a good costume? Because it's that type of movie. You don't have to take your costume at a 29th birthday costume party seriously, and you don't have to take Escape from New York seriously either. In both cases, you're just there to have fun. And in both cases, I had a lot of fun.

GRADE: 3.5 pukes out of 5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GROUP AVERAGE GRADE: 3.264 pukes out of 5

If you comment, he dies. If you don't comment, he dies.

(NEXT TIME: Our second solo outing of the quarter, as we watch Atonement, as chosen by Brianna.)

The Stone Roses, Bobby M.

I got into the Stone Roses completely backwards. Before I ever heard this album, I was already a huge fan of Manchester music without realizing it: Oasis, New Order, the Smiths, etc. Then I read an article about the biggest British bands that never really broke in America, and the Stone Roses were basically the example. So in January 2017, right after Trump got inaugurated, I threw the album on during my commute to work.

The first thing that hit me was how much this album feels tied to a specific place and time, late-'80s Manchester. It sounded like a world I knew nothing about but immediately wanted to know more about. I ended up going down a rabbit hole reading books about the band and the whole Madchester scene, listening to Happy Mondays and Inspiral Carpets and their contemporaries. Looking back on it now, I think my obsession with this record and associated scene was probably a reaction to the start of Trump's first term.

I remember standing on the platform at Allegheny Station in the freezing air, staring down at Kensington Ave. beneath me while the country felt like it was openly moving toward fascism, and this album was an escape. I wanted to be literally anywhere else.

What makes the album work for me is that the rhythm section is really the star of the show (something I tend to look for). Mani and Reni lock into these grooves that almost feel more dance music than rock music, while John Squire's guitars just shimmer and swirl all over everything. Ian honestly isn't a great singer, but it weirdly doesn't matter. The vocals add to the atmosphere instead of dominating it, much like early R.E.M.

My favorite lyrics: 

"Sometimes I fantasize, when the streets are cold and lonely, and the cars they burn below me. Don't these times fill your eyes?"

"I'd like to leave the country, for a month of Sundays, and burn the town where I was born..."

Album of the Week: The Stone Roses

I'm a big supporter of people joining Record Club and choosing an album, and I want new members to feel free to choose whatever they want. Have we had success when someone chooses one of their favorite albums of all time for Record Club to critique? Mixed success. As long as everyone is clear that we shouldn't be taking anyone's opinions personally, though, then I think we're good to go.

Record Club:

archives | supplemental

spotify playlist | youtube playlist

choose | writing

WEEK 379 — May 3-9, 2026

The Stone Roses

by the Stone Roses

LISTEN:

Spotify | YouTube | Bandcamp | Apple

~~~~~~~~~~

PICKED BY BOBBY M.

BOBBY'S PITCH: "What happens when you give four football hooligans tons of ecstasy and acid? The stars align for one perfect album that mixes classic rock, psychedelia, and dance music."

~~~~~~~~~~

ALBUM DETAILS

GENRE: Baggy, jangle pop, neo-psychedelia, jangle pop, Britpop, C86, Paisley Underground

RELEASED: May 2, 1989

LENGTH: 48:20

TRACKLIST:

1. I Wanna Be Adored
2. She Bangs the Drums
3. Elephant Stone
4. Waterfall
5. Don't Stop
6. Bye Bye Badman
7. Elizabeth My Dear
8. (Song for My) Sugar Spun Sister
9. Made of Stone
10. Shoot You Down
11. This Is the One
12. I Am the Resurrection
13. Fools Gold

LYRICS: Genius.com

~~~~~~~~~~

ARTIST DETAILS

PRONOUNS: he/him/his preferred by each of the four main members

ABOUT: The Stone Roses formed in Manchester, England in 1983. The original and most consistent lineup is comprised of Ian Brown (vocals), John Squire (guitar), Gary "Mani" Mounfield (bass), and Alan "Reni" Wren (drums). They were integral members of the Madchester scene (as semi-nonfictionally documented in 24 Hour Party People). After the critical and commercial success of their first album, they struggled to be released by their record label, and didn't release their second album till 1994, at which point the momentum had stalled. They broke up in the mid-'90s, but got back together in 2011 for a world tour, and possibility of new music. After releasing a couple tunes in 2016, they broke up again in 2017. Mani passed away in 2025.

DISCOGRAPHY: This is their first album. The second and only other album is 1994's Second Coming.

~~~~~~~~~~

ADDITIONAL INFO

READING SOME SHIT: an interview with NME published in 1989 (and republished by a blog in 2011)

WATCHING SOME SHIT: a concert in 1989 featuring most of this album's songs!

RECORD CLUB CONNECTIONS: As discussed during our 24 Hour Party People chat, Record Club's music has thus far not really touched on the Madchester scene, and thus there are very few connections here. The best I saw on Wikipedia was about an incident in which the members of the Stone Roses were getting revenge on their record label, and threw paint all over record execs, for which they were arrested and fined. It says that "Geezer Butler and Tony Iommi from Black Sabbath congratulated them for the incident."

These are our third stones, after the Rolling Stones and Bando Stone and the New World. These are our third roses, after Caroline Rose and Baby Rose, plus don't forget A Chaos of Flowers. Are there any other types of flowers in RC so far? I searched for a few, but didn't scroll all the way through, let me know what I'm missing.

MENTIONS ON THE BLOG: Shockingly few mentions for an album that means this much to me (ah well, that'll make the review pretty easy). A song from this album shows up on WPPR Episode 9, and a list of the best songs I discovered in 2009. I think that's it!

~~~~~~~~~~

COUNTDOWN:

69 Weeks Until Week 420

We are tracking and counting down every week from here on out till Record Club Week 420. We started this countdown 69 weeks out. During Record Club Week 420, we will be covering Donny Most by the esteemed Happy Days virgin Donny Most. The goal for Week 420 of Record Club is that it will feature 69 reviews from 69 different people. 

THIS WEEK: We are 41 weeks away from Week 420.

~~~~~~~~~~

Happy listening, RC family!
Have a great week!

Cheshire Cat, Bobby M.

As someone who was big into alternative music and played music, the "early blink" records were always held on a pedestal. When I was a teenager, I viewed this album, Dude Ranch, etc., in such high regard. blink followed the typical path for alternative bands --> great live performances, roughly produced independent albums (that fans believe are the best), onto mainstream success.

Overall, I love this album. I played the opening bass line to "Carousel" thousands of times, and could probably still play it today. It reflects the energy of a band that is playing small intimate venues with high energy. It's fun, it's immature, and best listened to at full volume.