Silent Madness (1984)

 

Silent Madness was one of those movies that just had a bad sense of timing all around. It came out too late in the 80s slasher craze to make an impression. By the time it was released in 1984, there had already been 3 sequels to Friday the 13th, two to Halloween, and innumerable knock-offs with such titles as My Bloody Valentine, Prom Night, Terror Train, Happy Birthday to Me, and so on. It also came out the year after 3D's big year so nobody was showing 3D movies at that time. It also came out right at the same time as Nightmare on Elm Street, which just totally bumped it out of theatres. As such, very few people saw it as it was originally intended. It didn't help the movie any that it doesn't really do anything that any other film in the genre does. In a bizarre way, it's a mash up between Halloween and the first Friday the 13th. 

The movie starts at Cresthaven Mental Hospital, somewhere in Manhattan. Cresthaven is overcrowded and understaffed, so a couple of incompetent doctors decide to release people back into society that they figure aren't a danger. Due to an absurd clerical error, one Howard Johns, a dangerous psychotic, is released instead of a simpleton named John Howard. Fearless Dr. Joan Gilmore (Belinda Montgomery) tumbles to this and tries to warn the upper management. They brush her off and claim that Johns is actually dead. Meanwhile, Johns somehow manages to get back to his old stomping grounds, Barrington School For Girls. See, Johns was the janitor there 20 years ago when he snapped and killed a bunch of sorority girls with a nail gun. How exactly Johns gets back to the college is never explained especially when we're told the school is over three hours away from the hospital. No matter. He's back and killing a new batch of sorority girls, some of whom don't even get names. Gilmore takes a weekend off and goes back to the school to track Johns down. The hospital decides to cover up and sends two demented orderlies after both Gilmore and Johns. 

Did you follow all of that? No. Doesn't matter. With a film like this you just tend to go along for the ride and enjoy the kills. Even when they're done with a hilarious cartoon ax.

The most creative thing the movie seems to have done is had then 34 year old Montgomery playing the film's Final Girl and not one of the teenagers. Montgomery does what she can with this, but while she seems to be trying to give a performance, Viveca Lindfors as the House Mom and Sidney Lassick as the Sheriff decide to say "to heck with it" and go wildly over the top. As do the insane orderlies. In fact, Montgomery seems to be the only one in the film not overacting!

At the end of the day this is your standard issue stalk and slash. The victims barely have names let alone personalities and the killer is the usual mute madman. Gore hounds will be a little disappointed that a lot of the admittedly inventive kills cut away before getting too gory and there's very little nudity for this type of thing. Is it better than it's kissing cousin Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3D? Maybe. The characters act a little less stupid. Well, most of them. The orderlies aren't particularly bright and neither is Lassick's sheriff. Some of the actors are a little better than in the 1982 slasher but that's a pretty low bar to be honest. Bizarrely, there's not one night scene anywhere in the movie. The only other slasher film that I can think of anything like that is the miserable 1997 3D cheapie Camp Blood, a movie so bad it makes this one look like Citizen Kane.

All things considered, I kinda like this movie. No, it's not very good. As I've pointed out before, none of the 80s 3D movies are any good, but this one is one of the slightly better ones. It's not something I'd watch every month or even every year, but I can see myself returning to it from time to time if only to get a laugh. 

Silent Madness came and went in October of 1984, overshadowed by Nightmare on Elm Street. It had a VHS release and a poor bootleg 3D version that wasn't even in the full widescreen. It's long been neglected and mostly forgotten except for by die hard slasher fans and 3D fans. Vinegar Syndrome and the 3D Film Archive decided somewhere along the way that Silent Madness was worth saving and now there's a beautiful 3D Blu Ray of it available. The Blu Ray includes 3 versions of the film: a 3D Blu Ray version requiring the proper TV and Blu Ray player, a 2D version (of course) and an anaglyphic (red/cyan) version that is probably the best anaglyphic video presentation I've ever seen. There's also a mess of extras on it including a fairly interesting documentary on the making of the movie and the original sizzle reel done for the movie.

If you're a 3D completist, you obviously need this disc. The 3D Film Archive worked their usual magic on it and as such it looks a lot better than most of the other 80s 3D films that have gotten a 3D Blu Ray release--Friday the 13th Part 3 included. The inclusion of the anaglyph version allows a wider audience to watch the movie in 3D. As I said, it's a much better anaglyph version than anything I've seen over the last 40 years of watching these things. Supposedly the 3D Film Archive will be doing this more and more on future releases.

I met Belinda Montgomery a few years ago at a Chiller Theatre convention and admitted to her that I liked her in a movie that I knew was a stupid movie. When she asked which one, I mentioned this one. She rolled her eyes and said "That is a stupid movie!"

Yes, Ms. Montgomery, it really is. But I kinda get a kick out of it.

Why 3-D Isn't As Dead As You Think

Once again, another source, Cheddar News on YouTube, has proclaimed the Final Death of 3-D. Of course, they've done so with a ton of misinformation. What's particularly sad about this is the attempt to educate us about 3-D while knowing nothing about it. So let's go through this once again: 3-D is not as dead as you think or the haters want. Sorry to disappoint the haters.

Let's talk a little about the history for 3-D for a moment. The earliest 3-D experiments date back to at least 1915 with the first feature in 3-D being in 1922. The Cheddar News video does correctly attribute these to being in the anaglyphic (red/cyan) format. There was a mini-boom in the 20s, mostly shorts with a couple of features. Why did it go away in the 20s? I would think mostly because the big experimentation was for sound. Sound and the Great Depression put a kibosh on a number of film experiments at the time, including Widescreen.

During the 1930s, polarized 3-D was being developed. One of the earliest polarized films was shown at the 1939 World's Fair in NY, a stop motion film called In Tune With Tomorrow. It was remade the following year in color as New Dimensions. The shorts were done in dual strip polarized 3-D. According to Cheddar, polarized glasses as yellow and brown as opposed to red and blue. What this proves is that the person doing the video hasn't actually seen any 3-D movies, especially polarized ones. Polarized glasses are clear and made of polarizing filters that are at a 90 degree angle to one another. Yellow and brown indeed.

World War II put a hold on further 3-D experimentation until the 1950s. And frankly, 3-D has pretty much been with us in one way or another ever since. Don't believe me? Let's look at the evidence.

It's generally accepted that Bwana Devil kicked off 3-D in the 1950s, but you can actually take it back a year to the Festival of Britain in 1951. A number of 3-D shorts were shot and shown there and almost all of them ended up in America in early 1953 after the success of Bwana Devil. Bwana Devil and 99% of all the 3D movies of the 50s were done in dual strip polarized 3-D. There were a couple of part 3D Burlesque features in anaglyph, but the mainstream stuff was all polarized. How does dual strip polarized 3-D work? It's shot using two cameras, one for each eye. It's then projected through two projectors. The two projectors have to be in perfect synchronization. The screen has to be an actual silver screen to reflect the light back. And the polarizing filters that the image passes through on the projector have to be changed every few days. They also have to be clean of smudges and fingerprints, as do the glasses. In short, projection of dual strip 3-D was a very precise science and if just one thing went wrong, the whole presentation would blow up.

Naturally, projectionists didn't care to be that precise. If they couldn't get it to sync up right away, they'd just let it go. Even one frame out of sync can lead to headaches and nausea. There reports of film being a full 24 frames--one full second--out of sync. To give you an idea of what that might look like, picture watching House of Wax and your left eye sees a medium shot of Vincent Price and your right eye sees a two shot of Price and Charles Bronson. The theater owners would cheap out as well, painting the screen instead of installing a proper silver screen. The projectionist union demanded two projectionists in a booth for 3-D shows, 3 if the magnetic stereo soundtrack was involved. Theater owners fought that, too. The end result was many shoddy presentations which left patron sick. Audiences began avoiding 3-D movies for this reason.

While all this was going on, 20th Century Fox was developing CinemaScope, a widescreen process that only used a single projector and a special lens. Theater owners, projectionists, and eventually audiences preferred this over the precision of 3-D, so many 3-D movies started getting flat showings only. Universal rolled out one last 3-D movie in 1955, Revenge of the Creature, and that as they say was that.

But not quite. As early as 1957, 3-D movies were being successfully reissued. The first new 3-D movie after Revenge of the Creature was also the first one released in 3-D and CinemaScope: September Storm in 1960. September Storm became the last dual strip 3-D movie. The following year, The Mask became the first of the part 3-D releases, with 3 segments in anaglyphic 3-D. This was followed by a pair of Nudie Cuties also in part 3-D in 1962, The Bellboy and the Playgirls and Paradiso. A third Nudie Cutie, Adam and Six Eves, was shot in 3-D but released flat until it made a 3-D Blu Ray debut last year courtesy of the 3-D Film Archive and Kino. 3-D took another four years off before returning with 1966's The Bubble, the first single strip polarized 3-D film. Single strip 3-D was supposed to solve the problems of projection. Each image was printed on the same strip of film, either side by side or over and under. They were then projected--again on a silver screen--through a special beam splitter. The whole thing should have been idiot-proof. Never underestimate the idiocy of the American projectionist, however. I've seen far too many single strip presentations that were sometimes painfully mis-projected: the wrong type of screen, the wrong type of beam splitter, the beam splitter not put on correctly, as well as the film being cut incorrectly by the projectionists all could and did wreak havoc on unsuspecting audiences for literally decades.

Nonetheless, The Bubble begat a system that was used for decades. It was followed by Paul Naschy's La Marca del Hombre Lobo in 1968, released in the US in 1971 as Frankenstein's Bloody Terror. 1969 gave us the infamous porn The Stewardesses, which set off a decade of similar films. There were some mainstream films in the 70s, including the part 3-D horror film The Flesh and Blood Show,  the 1974 gorefest Andy Warhol's Frankenstein,  the 1976 South Korean Kaiju flick A*P*E, and a couple of Kung Fu movies. While not everything was mainstream, 3-D was still alive and kicking for practically the whole decade.

3-D took a 3 year break before returning with Comin' At Ya! in 1981. That film started a new mini-boom that lasted until 1985 and produced 18 movies in 3-D. Maybe not as much as the 50s boom, but 3-D was very front and center for a few years in the 80s. Why did it die this time? I suspect projectionists had something to do with it as well as the simple fact that all 18 movies are actually terrible movies. The 50s had some bad films, too, but by and large the 50s batch was pretty good. There wasn't a single good movie released in 3-D from 1981 to 1985. I know because I've seen most of them. I can't imagine that the few I haven't seen are much better than the ones I have.

Six years went between 1985's Starchaser: The Legend of Orin and 1991's Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, which was another part 3-D anaglyphic affair. But that's not the full story, either since IMAX 3-D was ramping up starting in the mid-1980s and Disney was having a lot of success with Captain EO at their theme parks. In fact, IMAX 3-D (and porn ironically) carried 3-D through the 90s. And it was an IMAX 3-D release, James Cameron's 2003n Titanic documentary Ghosts of the Abyss, coupled with that same year's part 3-D anaglyphic release of Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over that set the current boom in motion. But even before that there were a few more mainstream releases: a terrible 1995 film called Run For Cover with Adam West in it and a 1997 Charles Band horror comedy called The Creeps. Plus there were 3-D made for video horror films in the late 90s like the atrocious Camp Blood. To say nothing of all the theme park attractions in 3-D like T2 3D: Battle Across Time, Shrek 4-D, MuppetVision 3-D, etc.

Ever since Spy Kids 3-D, there hasn't been a year without 3-D movies. Part of the longevity now seems to be the fact that projection is finally Projectionist-proof. Outside of forgetting to turn the 3-D filter for the projector on (I've seen this happen), there's no way the image can be screwed up nowadays. It also helps that there's much better movies being made nowadays as opposed to the batch from the 60s through the 90s. While there's definitely been some stinkers in the past 17 years, there's been plenty of movies like Hugo, Gravity, Life of Pi, the various Marvel and Star Wars movies, etc. that can stand alongside the classics of the 50s. The circular polarized glasses are better, too. More comfortable and you can tilt your head without losing the effect. Of course, Hollywood did itself no favors with some lousy rushed conversions like Clash of the Titans, but now even the conversions look great. Watching The Force Awakens or The Walk, you'd hardly believe they weren't actually shot in 3-D.

Yes, there's not as many 3-D movies as there were 7 or 8 years ago, but there's still some high profile releases. Yes, TV manufacturers stopped making 3-D TVS, but you can still get 3-D projectors for the home. Frankly, bigger is better with 3-D anyhow. There's a huge difference between seeing The Force Awakens in 3-D on a 50 inch TV screen and seeing it on a 100 inch projection screen. And while it is also true that not as many 3-D Blu Rays are being released in America, you can still get many of the big releases from Europe. I've gotten the last half dozen Marvel movies and the last 3 Star Wars movies all from the UK on 3-D Blu Ray, and all region free. On top of that, the 3-D Film Archive is still releasing several titles a year on 3-D Blu Ray. Taza, Son of Cochise will be out from the 3DFA and Kino later this month. And unless Covid-19 kills movie theaters totally forever, there are some high profile releases coming this fall like Black Widow and Wonder Woman 1984.

So no, 3-D is not totally dead. And it really hasn't been totally dead for nearly 70 years. Even when it goes away, it only goes away for a few years before poking back up in some fashion. The longest gap between movies since the 50s has been five, and that was right after Revenge of the Creature. All the other gaps have been an average of 3-4 years. So I have to say it: 3-D, like the Force, will be with us always.

3-D Thursday: 3-D Rarities Vol II

The 3-D Film Archive has done it again. Five years after the incredible 3-D Rarities from the 3D Film Archive and Flicker Alley, we a second installment that's nearly as great as it's predecessor. There may be a little less this time, but what there is, is wonderful.

Vol. II kicks off with A Day in the Country, a 1953 Lippert short. Originally shot in New Jersey in 1941 as Stereo Laffs and intended to beat the Pete Smith short Third Dimensional Murder to the screen, A Day in the Country basically sat on a shelf until Lippert put it out to cash in the 3D craze that was just getting under way. The short was released in anaglyphic format back then, one of the rare anaglyph releases. Narrated by future Stooge Joe Besser, the short is a pleasant if somewhat goofy affair that, like the Smith short, manages to throw everything it can think of out of the screen at you. Incidentally, this is from the only surviving print, a somewhat faded anaglyph. The image might not be the prettiest, but it's the best we'll see on this one.

If you're a little more highbrow than that, the second short should be more up your alley: The Black Swan, a 1951 ballet short shot for the Festival of Britain. It's incredibly well staged in 3D and makes you wonder why more shorts like it weren't done. A couple of other shorts for the Festival of Britain were included on Volume I, so maybe Volume III could complete the collection!*

Hillary Hess narrates the next part, a 20 minute collection of 3-D stills taken from the mid-40s to the late 50s. It's a fascinating look at a time long gone and Hess's narration brings it even more to life. Most fans praise this segment the most and for good reason.

A very odd short done in 1966, Games in Depth, is up next. Shot by the Polaroid company, Apparently intended for Expo '67 but never released until now. It's a mess of different shots set to goofy music, which is pretty bizarre but worth watching at least once.

The prologue to Frankenstein's Bloody Terror follows. I missed my chance to see the film itself in 3-D a few years ago and this two minute prologue really makes me regret that. Following that and rounding out the shorts section is a trailer for the never released clip documentary, The 3-D Movie. It's sad we'll never see this film as it looked like a ton of fun with clips from The Stranger Wore a Gun and Gorilla at Large among other things.

Then comes the centerpiece of the whole thing, the first Mexican 3-D feature, El Corazon y La Espada. Starring Cesar Romero and Katy Jurado, this is a wonderful little swashbuckler about a Spanish nobleman (Romero) out to take back his castle from the Moors. Jurado is the spitfire looking for the formula to turn lead into gold.  Ponce De Leon is also tagging along, looking for the Rose of Youth. There's a lot of sneaking around secret passages, which looks great in 3-D. The sword play won't make it forget Errol Flynn, but the movie is reasonably fun. I've certainly seen worse 3-D movies over the years. The disc allows you to watch it either in Spanish with subtitles or the English dubbed track from the movies 1956 re-release in America as Sword of Granada. A Kickstarter campaign was done to complete the restoration of the film and as it result, it looks spectacular.

The disc finally ends with a selection of 3D stills taken by Harold Lloyd. I've seen at least some of these before since I have a book of Lloyd's stills, but they're even more spectacular here. Harold's granddaughter Suzanne narrates this wonderful look back at a bygone era.

3-D Rarities II is, as I said earlier, nearly as great as the first one. There's less here but it's still great stuff. The only real knock on the disc is that you can't access each short separately like you could the original disc. Nonetheless, this is another must have from the 3-D Film Archive.

3-D Thursday: Comin' At Ya! (1981)

Let's not kid ourselves. Comin' At Ya! is a rotten movie. It has the barest amount of plot it can muster and about as much dialogue. Possibly less. Point in fact, it barely qualifies as a movie. So much so that nobody found a reason to release it on home video in the U.S. until Rhino put out a poor anaglyphic VHS and DVD in 1999, 18 years after it was first released. Its prior home video release was in the mid 80s in the old field sequential format on Japanese VHD. Now its managed a 3D Blu Ray release with the humorous sticker proudly trumpeting the 2D version is included. Please. There's barely a reason to watch it in 3-D, let alone flat.

The bare premise is that after  white slavers kidnap his wife (Victoria Abril) on their wedding day, H.H. Hart (Tony Anthony--God help me, that's his name) gets pissed off and angry and decides to hunt them down. Hart rescues his wife and a bunch of other women, the white slavers recapture them, kill them, and then Hart kills all the white slavers. The End.

If you're thinking that my words are not doing justice to this movie--that surely there must be more to it than that--let me reassure you. No, there really isn't. This is a movie whose plot summary would fit on a postage stamp with room left over.

In an effort to perhaps make the film more interesting, the filmmakers added a gimmick to the gimmick for the reissue. Calling it "Noir 3-D", they went back and made certain shots black and white, or part black and white. It's meant to add a visual flair to the movie, but it's actually an epic fail. It's actually more distracting than interesting.

Like almost every 3-D movie from The Bubble in 1966 to the My Bloody Valentine 3-D in 2009, Comin' At Ya! lost its mind with gimmick shots. Bats, rats, playing cards, guns, knives, spears, flaming arrows, gold coins, coffee beans, and yes a baby's bare ass are flung, tossed, chucked, dropped and otherwise thrust at the audience over the course of 90 minutes. To put it another way, this movie's 3-D is about as subtle as the most garish Hawaiian shirt you can imagine. And while this level of gimmicky goodness does seem to be a lost art today, this particular example is practically a rape of your eyeballs.

It is an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, if you have a 3D TV and are sick of watching 3D movies that have few to no gimmick shots, the 3D Blu Ray of Comin' At Ya! might just be what the doctor ordered. On the other hand, the 3D Film Archive did not work on this release, so there is no correction to the alignment. This means that the film looks fairly brutal. As often happened back then, some of the gimmick shots get way too close to the camera. Virtually every 3D movie of the 70s and 80s did this, causing shots that made you feel like your eyeballs were about to be ripped out of your head.

If you are a completionist of either vintage 3-D or 3-D in general, then absolutely get this disc. If, however, you are subject to headaches from 3-D movies, you may want to skip this disc. I've watched  3-D movies for almost 35 years and even I had difficulty with it. I ended up watching the movie in chunks, partly because of how bad the movie itself is and partly because I need to rest my eyes from the constant assault being inflicted on them.

I am glad to have finally seen the movie in a proper 3-D format. The old Rhino VHS made a pretty brutal to watch movie even more so. I think the restoration could have concentrated less on the black and white and more on correcting the 3-D, but it is what it is. Comin' At Ya! is the first of the 18 3-D movies released between 1981 and 1985, so as a piece of 3-D history, like the equally awful Bwana Devil and The Stewardesses before it, it rates a viewing if you're a 3-D buff. Otherwise, there are better examples of this sort of thing, even from that decade.

3-D Classics on Blu Ray

If you're a fan of vintage 3-D 2016 has been a pretty awesome year so far. MVD kicked things off in January with 1981's Comin' At Ya!. Admittedly, that's a terrible movie--all of the 80s 3-D films fail at being good movies--but it has a lot of goofy 3-D gimmick shots so it's kind of fun in that manner.

Kino Lorber in March released Gog courtesy of the 3-D Film Archive. I've mentioned before what a fantastic restoration it is and it bears repeating. Gog hasn't looked this good since its initial release in 1954. This is a restoration to rival restorations from the major studios, that's how well done it is. If you're a fan of 50s science fiction or classic 3-D movies, you really need to get this one.

Going back to 80s 3-D for a moment, last month Universal finally released all 3 Jaws sequels on Blu Ray. Included in this, of course, is Jaws 3-D. While they didn't make as big a deal about it as it can be argued they should have, that Blu includes the 3-D version listed as a special feature. But it's the 3-D Blu Ray edition, unlike Paramount's anaglyphic release of Friday the 13th Part 3. Some of the gimmick shots get way too close to the camera for comfort but the 3-D looks great. I have a warm spot for Jaws 3-D (despite knowing it's a bad movie) since it was my first 3-D movie in the theaters so I'm glad it's finally out the way it was meant to be seen. Besides, why would you want to watch it any other way?

The most recent release is a 1950s title from Twilight Time. Miss Sadie Thompson starring Rita Hayworth and Jose Ferrer shipped just this week. Sony did a beautiful 3-D DCP restoration a few years ago. I saw that DCP at the 2013 World 3-D Film Expo and it looked terrific. That's what Twilight Time is releasing. I'm looking forward to revisiting this soon.

There's more on the way, too. Kino Lorber and the 3-D Film Archive are working on 1976's A*P*E.  A South Korean Kaiju movie made to compete  with the Dino DeLaurentis remake of King Kong, A*P*E has a ridiculous looking 36 foot gorilla rampaging across Korea, kidnapping Joanna Kerns (the mom from Growing Pains), and flipping off the audience! While it wouldn't be my first choice for restoration, I'm confident the 3-D Film Archive will make it look better than it deserves. More exciting is the potential restoration of September Storm from the 3-D Film Archive. There's a Kickstarter campaign to fund the restoration at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/3-dspace/september-storm-1960-3-d-digital-feature-film-rest. If you are a fan of vintage 3-D, you owe it to yourself to contribute to this.

On top of that, Shout Factory has announced 1983's Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Syn. Charles Band's second of three 3-D movies, Metalstorm stars Kelly Preston in the second worst sci-fi movie she was in (Battlefield Earth remains the champ) and Richard Moll in the part that got him the role of Bull in Night Court. It has just enough goofy 3-D effects to make it worth watching, too. The 3-D Blu Ray will be released on September 13.

Finally, Universal may be working on the 1953 sci-fi classic It Came From Outer Space. Originally, Panamint in the U.K. had announced a release set for this month but cancelled it when Universal said they were planning a release. It the Universal Blu Ray is the same as what Panamint was planning, it will include the short that originally played with the movie, Nat King Cole and Russ Morgan's Orchestra. Universal hasn't confirmed anything yet, however, so vintage 3-D fans wait eagerly for news.

For those of you who wonder why I get so enthusiastic about these old 3-D movies and not so much the newer ones, it's because I generally find the older titles have better 3-D. They take better advantage of the process with greater depth and more gimmick shots. Even the less gimmicky films of the 50s are deeper and, as a rule, have at least some pop outs. There are more recent titles that have     nothing coming out of the screen at all. They also usually don't take as much advantage of the depth as they could. There are exceptions, of course, but they aren't the rule. So until all modern filmmakers bring the fun back to 3-D, I'll continue to jump at any of these older titles.

Top Gun (1986)

Secret Confessions of a Movie Buff: I loved Top Gun when it came out in 1986, mostly due to having a mad crush on Kelly McGillis. 30 years later and it's still a guilty pleasure of mine.

Tom Cruise, in the role that made him a superstar, is Navy hotshot Pete "Maverick" Mitchell. He's one of the best pilots in the Navy, but he's reckless and has no respect for authority. Despite this, when the best on his carrier tosses in his wings, Maverick and RIO Goose (Anthony Edwards) get sent to the elite Naval Flight Academy, nicknamed Top Gun. There Maverick runs afoul of rival Iceman (Val Kilmer) and instructor Jester (Michael Ironside), romances civilian instructor Charlie (McGillis), and learns the truth about his father from chief instructor Viper (Tom Skerritt).

Let's be objectively honest here. Top Gun is a ridiculous piece of Reagan-era Cold War patriotic claptrap. It's really nothing more than pure pop eye candy. For that matter, it's eye candy for whatever your taste is: aerial dogfights, topless men playing volleyball, Kelly McGillis and Meg Ryan, rocking 80s soundtracks, even bad karaoke. It's the very definition of mindless summer blockbuster.

Which is exactly why it works.

Nobody, even in 1986, ever argued this was a good movie. It's not. But it is a fun movie, making it a good summer movie. It's the type of movie that lets you turn your brain off and just soak it all in. Okay, so the dialogue is hilariously awful. Every other line seems to have a homoerotic subtext to it, too, which is doubly hilarious since the movie bends over backwards to prove how macho it is.

Of course, besides the ridiculous dialogue, this is a movie that never met a cliche it didn't like. Sure, the specter of Maverick's dad hangs over things since the old man died in disgrace but was really a hero. Sure, the moment Goose's wife (Ryan) shows up, we know he's doomed and not fifteen minutes later, Goose is gone. Of course Maverick is going to doubt himself after Goose's death and almost drop out only to redeem himself when the Godless Commies attack at the end. Naturally, big rival Iceman and Maverick are going to become good friends at the end. Hell, even McGillis is a cliche: she shows up 20 minutes or so into the movie, walks out an hour later, and comes back right at the end just so the love story can have a Boy meets Girl/Boy loses Girl/Boy gets Girl in the end trajectory!

But ultimately it's the dogfights that make the movie. 30 years later and they're still mad impressive. This was before the age of CGI, so those are real planes (and some models) in the air doing the crazy acrobatics we see. These acrobatics did ultimately cost the life of stuntman of Art Scholl, leading the film to be dedicated to him. Ironically, the reason a sequel wasn't made back then was due to every bit of footage shot for the dogfights ending up on screen. When Paramount learned that, they didn't want to invest in the money to shoot more for the sequel, even though this was the biggest movie of the year.

Top Gun was so successful that for much of  the rest of the 80s, Tom Cruise would keep remaking it, trading out professions and leading ladies. Days of Thunder (racing/Nicole Kidman), Cocktail (bartender/Elisabeth Shue) and both beat for beat redos of Top Gun. Finally, Cruise decided to start actually acting and has since developed the best career out of the rest of the cast. Meg Ryan for a time became America's sweetheart. McGillis went on to do movie after movie where she took off her clothes but only had one more real good movie left in her, 1988's The Accused, which realistically was more Jodie Foster's comeback than anything. Kilmer had a decent career until he became too difficult in the mid-90s. Tom Skerritt and Anthony Edwards went on to have small screen success with Picket Fences and ER, respectively.

It's worth mentioning that Top Gun was converted to 3D and re-issued to theaters and Blu Ray as such in 2013. Director Tony Scott personally supervised the 3D conversion before committing suicide. In that sense, Top Gun was his first big film and, with the reissue, also his last.

Is Top Gun dated? Absolutely. Everything about it screams 1986: the attitude, the fashions, the soundtrack. Despite that, it's still a movie that's pure entertainment. If you're looking for an intelligent, thoughtful movie, forget it. If you're looking for a good time for a couple of hours, though, this is it.

Sequels, Remakes, and Reboots Part III: Sequels

Of the three things being discussed in this series, sequels are generally speaking the hardest to come to a vague defense of.  And yet, they've been around for decades to say nothing of centuries. The biggest argument against them is that they seem to be nothing more than a money grab. But, truth to tell, one can say that of almost any commercial endeavor, especially in regards to movies. Movies are a business, after all, something most people forget.

While we like to think of sequels as being of relatively recent vintage, they really aren't. They stretch back to at least the 1910s. But back then, nobody just numbered the films. One of the early examples of a sequel comes, fittingly enough, from the serial format. The first serial was done in 1912, called What Happened to Mary?. It was a success--as well as being one of the early movie tie-ins where a novelization was done in serial format in the newspapers--and inspired a second serial called Who Will Marry Mary?. Admittedly, neither one of those sounds like an edge of your seat cliffhanger, but then again, it took a couple of years for the serial format to really develop into that. That wasn't the only serial from the era to gain a sequel. 1916's Pearl White thriller The Exploits of Elaine got one called The Romance of Elaine.

Of course, I'm just speaking cinematically. You can take it back a lot farther than 1913. In fact, you can take the numbered sequel routine back to a guy whose name may or may not have actually been William Shakespeare. Seems he did a few Part 1 and Part 2 type plays back in the day. In fact, you can take it father back than that to the Greeks, with the Thebes plays by Sophocles and The Illiad and The Odyssey. "Yes, but those are classics" you may be saying. They're classics now, but they were pop entertainment--in particular Shakespeare's work--in their day.

Sequels proliferated in novel format once the printing press was invented. Accordingly, a number of said sequels were essentially repeats of the novel that preceded them. Sound familiar? This was done mostly to assert the author's ownership over the properties.

The point is, this sort of thing has literally gone on for centuries and isn't likely to change any time soon.

Up until about the 1970s, however, sequels--or at least movie sequels--tried to tell somewhat different stories and have completely different titles. The sequel to the 1931 Frankenstein wasn't called Frankenstein 2, it was called The Bride of Frankenstein. While some of the nuts and bolts of the story were similar, it also wasn't a direct repeat of the first movie, either. Not even serials told the same exact story or numbered their sequels.

There were a couple of examples of sequels being numbered prior to the 1970s--Quatermass 2 from 1957 being possibly the earliest example--but starting in that decade, the floodgates started to open. While both The Godfather Part II and The French Connection II were both considered better than their respective first movies, they also seemed to help get the trend of numbering started. The Exorcist II, Rocky II and Jaws 2 followed by the end of the decade. Then came the 1980s.

For reasons that film historians will be debating 100 years from now, if they're not already debating it, the sequel concept really caught fire in the 80s. It mostly seems to have started off with the slasher film. 1981 brought us both Halloween II and Friday the 13th Part 2, both of which were just sucessful enough for the studios to ensure that we'd be spending much of the decade watching their spawn. Sequel after sequel to those and other horror franchises followed and so long as they made a profit, they kept getting made. Comedies--most notably raunchy juvenile comedies like Porky's and Meatballs started getting in on the act as did action movies. The single biggest problem with a large number of these is the fact that they really did simply repeat the first movie--and nowhere near as well. I enjoyed the first two Police Academy films when I was a teenager but quickly abandoned the series after the third film when I realized that not only did it suck, but it simply repeated all the jokes in the first two. Mind you, this is coming from someone who didn't always have the greatest of taste in movies when he was a teenager.

The trend was so bad by 1983 that Siskel and Ebert's "Worst of the Year" show for that year was dedicated to nothing but sequels. I have to admit, there were some pretty wretched sequels unleashed on the public that year. They highlighted such rotten sequels as The Sting II, Staying Alive--the sequel to Saturday Night Fever and the only film on the list of sequels to not have a number--, Smokey and the Bandit 3, Jaws 3-D (which I kinda like even though it is a bad movie), and Amityville 3-D. At the end of the show, they implored audiences to not watch any sequels unless they said so.

I will be fair to the 80s, however. There were some sequels that were very good in that decade, mostly in the science fiction genre. I'm not sure what it is about science fiction, but the sequels to sci-fi movies are rarely dumb repeats. The Star Wars and Star Trek sequels are all fairly decent. Even the "bad" entries in those series are better than most comedy and slasher sequels. I'm sorry, but I'd rather watch the much hated Star Trek V: The Final Frontier than the same numbered Nightmare on Elm Street or Police Academy movies. None of the 80s Indiana Jones movies--even the much maligned Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom--are bad movies either. Continuing with the sci-fi theme, Aliens was also an excellent sequel. We just won't talk about the 90s Alien movies.

Part of the problem, which again goes back to the 70s, is that following the law of diminishing returns, sequels got lower and lower budgets as the series went on. The original Planet of the Apes series is a prime example of this. The excellent make up jobs on all of the apes in the first film gave way to bad Halloween masks in later entries. The diminishing budgets may not be as evident in comedies like the Revenge of the Nerds series, but it comes up front and center in an effects heavy series like Superman. The budget and effects for the notorious Supergirl and Superman IV were so bad that they killed the series until the 2000s.

Lately, however, that doesn't necessarily follow. Movies are trying to put more money into the sequel, to make it bigger and more spectacular than the film that came before. Sometimes that pays off. A fairly surprising source of good sequels nowadays seems to be in the comic book genre. With the exceptions of a few notable missteps like X-Men III--a movie I truly regret seeing--the comic book genre has really stepped up. The latest Thor and Iron Man movies were, if not better than their predecessors, at least as good as. Spider-Man 2 and X2 were also better sequels. Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy got better as it went along.  In the coming months we'll have sequels to both Captain America and X-Men that both look like they should be good. Again, like Sci-Fi movies, the thing that these newer comic book movies have going for them is their ability to tell different stories in each film. That helps make the movies at least seem fresher, or at the very least, not make us think "didn't we see this story already?".

Of course, there's a lot of other sequels coming this summer and even more in 2015. The thing is, some of them will be good. They certainly have the capacity and lately haven't been too bad at it. Well, except for comedy sequels. They still haven't figured out that idea. Other sequels--like the forthcoming Dolphin Tail 2--will make us wonder why in God's name a sequel was necessary. Others still just may make us hate humanity for their existence.

So, at the end of the day, should you listen to Siskel & Ebert's advice from 30 years ago? No sequels unless directly told otherwise. Not necessarily. I still watch sequels and in a few weeks will be happily dropping money to see the second Captain America. I'm fairly sure it will make a mint, too. So long as sequels make money, sequels get made no matter how good, bad, or indifferent. That's the way it's always been, that's the way it is, and that's the way it's always going to be.