Dragon Ball: Mystical Adventure (1988)

Film: Dragon Ball: Mystical Adventure (Doragon bôru: Makafushigi dai bôken)
Release: 1988, Theatrical
Starring: Ceyli Delgadillo, Meredith McCoy, Kent Williams
Directed by: Kazuhisa Takenouichi
Previous in the series: Dragon Ball: Sleeping Princess in Devil's Castle
Next in the series: Dragon Ball Z: The Dead Zone
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Taking place a year later, Goku and Krillin has finished their training with Master Roshi and is going to the big city to prove themselves in the international martial arts tournament. Meanwhile, a child emperor has lost his queen and is gathering the legendary dragon balls in order to find her, little aware that his advisor has sinister purposes of his own

Hans' thoughts:

Presumably this movie takes place in the same version of the Dragon Ball universe where the two previous films takes place, as once again we have a retelling of, this time not only one but two major story arcs from the main comics with a series of changes made to make it work as a film. The story lines combined are what is known among fans as "The 22nd Tenkaichi Budokai" and "The Red Ribbon Saga" but with major changes in what amount of involvement different characters have in the plot and what position they have. Most notable are the changes done to the characters of Tien and Chiaotzu. In the original comics, Tien and Chiaotzu made their first appearance as competitors in a martial arts tournament being misguided into cruelty by their ambitious master and rival of Master Roshi, Master Shen. In this version, Chiaotzu is the child emperor of the nation where the tournament is held, Shen is his deceiving advisor and Tien serves as his bodyguard, on top of that, what in the series and comics is known as the Red Ribbon army owned by the devilish Commander Red is in this version the royal army of Emperor Chiaotzu, with Mercenary Tao Bai Bai serving as it's general and Master Shen serving as it's behind-the-scenes commander. Blue does make an appearance as well, but in this case he serves as a lieutenant rather than a General.

However in spite of all these changes, the core feel of the story is actually kept very much intact. Characters still play the same role as they did before but in a vastly different setting and it makes for a interesting "what if..?" scenario. This story, while not entirely humorless, does have a more serious tone but it differentiates from Sleeping Princess in Devil's Castle by actually giving a sense of high stakes. The martial arts tournament also gives the opportunity for more action scenes, but (perhaps thankfully) the focus is quickly shifted to giving us a main villain in the form of Mercenary Tao. Tao was the first character to actually start killing people in the series so having him here makes for a really badass bad guy. His motivations are purely based on bloodlust however, so perhaps for the sake of substance Master Shen is there as well as the one pulling the strings. 

Oddly enough this movie doesn't use any original characters at all to the point of keeping scenes from the original story arcs you wouldn't consider all that important. The most obvious one would be the inclusion of Goku's journey to Penguin City, for those not in the know, Penguin City was the setting for a comedic series called Dr. Slump that the author of the original comic book Akira Toriyama had done before he went on to create Dragon Ball. In the comic, Goku travels to Penguin City while fighting the villanous General Blue of the Red Ribbon army. There he meets some of the characters from Dr. Slump comic series and is even assisted by them in the fight. This is somewhat kept into the movie, as Arale, the superpowered main character of the series stays around to spectate a battle between Goku and Mercenary Tao throughout their second battle. It was meant as a easter egg for the fans of Dr. Slump in the original manga, so keeping it in a movie adaptation is one thing, but putting her on the poster is a really strange choice. Why they did this is anyone's guess but my bet is that it was done for marketing reasons.

Most of Goku's normal allies, while definitely present throughout, takes a major backseat in this movie. This is mainly Goku's adventure and it is mostly focused on having Goku overcome his struggles by himself. This makes the other characters mainly serve as expository characters and most of their scenes involve comic relief. Honestly though, if it wasn't for the cheerful music and bright colors some of the moments in this one actually becomes pretty serious so I'm glad they at the very least decided to leave the other characters in the movie. The Red Ribbon Army saga of the comics is one of my favorite comic book plotlines out there, so take it from me when I say that all the changes made to the story actually doesn't take you out of the experience. Instead it's a fun movie and perhaps one of the best Dragon Ball movies out there, Z or otherwise included.

Dead Heat (1988)

Film: Dead Heat
Release: 1988, Theatrical
Starring: Treat Williams, Joe Piscopo, Lindsay Frost
Directed by: Mark Goldblatt
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When investigating a number of strange robberies, it suddenly occurs to the criminal investigative team of Robert Mortis and Doug Bigelow that some of the corpses in the morgue are returning customers.

Hans' thoughts:

When talking about cinema in the 1980's, it's no secret that a defining genre of the decade was the buddy cop comedy. A rag-tag duo of a serious by-the-book cop and his wisecracking partner with a heart of gold trying to stop some larger than life crime organization from whatever plot they have in the work is a pretty easy frame to put in whatever gimmick you'd like to. Normally it would be something easy for the audience to latch on to, like K-9 where a no-nonsense cop is paired with a dog who has a major attitude problem. The all-time greatest showcase of buddy cop movie conventions (as well as other urban crime action movies) would later show up in The Last Action Hero starring musclebound hero Arnold Schwarzenegger coupled with a movie-loving loudmouth kid. But enough about that, this time we're looking at Dead Heat.

Combining all the well-known clichés of the buddy cop movie with a zombie movie is a pretty unconventional move indeed, which is probably why this particular feature didn't receive much of a commercial success and only a limited international release. This can most likely also have something to do with the niche-nature of the zombie "genre" at the time of the movie's production. While zombie movies were certainly around at the time, Hollywood didn't think much of it and the movie was made long before it became basic practise to copy the kind of zombies (now considered classic) found in George A. Romero's Zombie series. No, these zombies are nothing like the zombies found in pretty much any other zombie movie. For starters, the zombies in this film retain their personality from their past lives, and the (limited) gore in the film comes less from epic fight scenes and more from a fault in the resurrection process. It's actually kind of fascinating to see something this different from the usual kind of mindless brain-munchers that show up in most modern media. No offense to the classic type of zombie, though you'll find no overwhelming hordes in this film.

Unfortunately the movie does have it's faults. Easy to recognize badly done stage falls, poor comedic chemistry between the two main characters and little to no actual character development are among it's most criminal offenses. Now, the actors are actually fair enough but they seem to be phoning in their performances, probably because of little regard for the material they're paid to deliver. The movie is also very "safe", throwing in a sudden action scene when movie's producers must've felt the audience was about to fall asleep. This wasn't a very popular genre at the time, so the fact that the writers felt the need to explain everything in the universe as quickly as possible must've been an attempt to at least have audiences keep up with the concepts. I'm not saying the movie is not entertaining, but unless the setup of the movie tickles your fancy to begin with, there is not much here besides spectacle. Boy is there ever spectacle, in a move that I have scarcely seen repeated in other movies, the resurrection technology appears to also work on animals. I'm not saying where this comes into play, but if you love over-the-top goofball spectacle this is worth a watch for that particular scene alone. 

If you like zombies and you want to see a very different kind of zombie movie, this could be it for your movie night. The buddy cop element of the movie may not be very good, I'd say average compared to other films in the sub-genre, this manages to at least hold your attention while the story is told. Perhaps with a cast that actually had an interest in the parodied material, this could have been a truly great comedy. As it is though, it makes for an excellent excuse to eat popcorn and enjoy those 80's special effects. Personally, this stands as somewhat of a "guilty pleasure" of mine, and if I could choose one movie to give another shot, this would probably be it. This movie was just not made for the era it was produced in, and perhaps a modern crew with more experience with the zombie genre could do the concept justice.

Rambo III (1988)

Film: Rambo III
Release: 1988, theatrical
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Richard Crenna, Kurtwood Smith
Directed by: Peter MacDonald
Previous in the series: Rambo: First Blood Part II
Next in the series: Rambo
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: After his friend and mentor, Colonel Trautman, goes Missing In Action, John Rambo gears up and goes to Afghanistan.

Hans' thoughts:

So whereas First Blood was very dark, Rambo: First Blood Part II was very over the top. This movie sits somewhere inbetween, unfortunately, it really doesn't work out for it.

Let me retrace my steps for a second and talk about the plot. When we rejoin our hero in this move, Rambo is doing some pretty well-shot stick fighting. Implant this image in your mind, because this is actually the highpoint of the movie. It's all down hill from here. Rambo has gone to Thailand and chosen to live in peace in a buddhist castle, now, this could have been a great - albeit risky - film. The movie could have dealt with Rambo struggling to find a place in the world outside of warfare. Dealing with finding peace and trying to resolve his problems without violence. This could have been a nice tail-end to the roots of the franchise, veterans who struggle to find a place in the world and dealing with major trauma. Unfortunately, this is Hollywood. Money is meant to be made on this movie. This results in Rambo being approached by his former mentor Col. Trautman about going to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets (much akin to the beginning of the last movie).

To the movie's credit though, initially Rambo declines and we don't see yet another retake on American officials not respecting him. Trautman goes to Afghanistan by himself and it isn't till he's caught by the Soviets that the government officials talk him into going in to save him. It's also nice to the character of Colonel Trautman actually doing something active instead of just being the guy who defends him verbally like in the two former movies. Where this movie fails isn't really in the plot, but more in the poor attempts to marry the serious aspect of First Blood with the over-the-top action of Rambo: First Blood Part II. This results in a first half where the characters act almost as a tour-guide of Afghanistan and it's culture. Followed by a second half of an otherwise pretty serious movie being turned into action schlock. Really, the action in this movie makes even less sense than in Part II. Of course, the action is much more reserved than in the former movie. Rambo III doesn't have nearly the same amount of absolutely ridicolous explosions. One of them stood out to me though, you'll probably guess which one if you watch it yourself.

This movie could have been a lot better than it is, by choosing what it wanted to do. It could have gone the absolutely action-filled route of Part II, or sticked to it's guns on the reserved nature of Part I. As it stands, it becomes a weird mess of atmosphere. The movie is perfectly servicable though, it's just sad that it could have been so much more than it turned out to be.

Peter Pan (1988)

Had to scan my VHS copy for this one
- Hans

Film: Peter Pan
Release: 1988, video
Starring: Phillip Hinton, Keith Scott, Daniel Floyd 
Directed by: Franco Cristofani
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Every night, Peter Pan and Tinkerbell listen to the stories told in the Darling household. One day, circumstances turn to Peter showing the Darling children his homeworld Neverland where he intends to make the oldest, Wendy, the new mother of the lost boys.

Hans' thoughts:

This is a very different take on the tale of Peter Pan. Peter in this version is endlessly egotistical, Tinkerbell is downright cruel and for some reason Captain Hook is kind of obnoxious. The voice actors has also chosen to, for whatever reason, make weird sounds for the characters whenever there isn't any scripted lines. This results in the characters, the pirates especially, making a lot of weird grunts. The character model also comes off almost constantly, making them sort of fluid. This happens a lot to especially Hook (who looks nothing like this cover by the way). Is the movie any good? Well if you don't like Disney it provides you with an alternative. It at least sticks very much to the story, but don't take it for anything more than what it is. That is, if you can actually track this version down. I do have some compliments, while the characters are very much off model the glowing effects on Tinkerbell is very well done. To the point of it being hard to see the actual outlines on the characters. But she definitely glows. The backgrounds are pretty well colored. It's actually a pretty beautiful movie if you remove all the characters. But that kinda removes the point of it being a movie, does it not?

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

Film: Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Release: 1988, theatrical
Starring: Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd, Joanna Cassidy
Director: Robert Zemeckis
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The down-on-his-luck private detective Eddie Valiant must come to terms with his hatred of Toons when one of his cases go haywire.

Hans' thoughts:

It would be easy to think that this movie won out on technical achievement alone: First filmed with all the human actors, followed by every frame of the movie printed out in full color and drawn on with oil paint, resulting in 82,000 frames of completely fluid, classic-looking animation. No computers were used. Fortunately, this movie doesn't stop at the achievements at that, or even the fact that it was a joint effort between several rivalling animation studios (most notably Disney and Warner Bros.) and the efforts of Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic team. No, this movie actually stands as well on its story and the talents of the actors and voice actors involved. Yeah, you can probably tell I love this movie. I wouldn't go as far as to call it my favorite movie of all time (because I don't believe in favorites) but it is very close to that.

Everyone does a good job in this movie, the animation captures that 40's feel, the brought-in first-timer (at the time) Bob Hoskins shows us some pretty good acting chops, Christopher Lloyd is delightfully creepy and Amy Irving's singing voice as Jessica Rabbit is riveting. The comedic timing is good as well, but at some points in the movie you can tell the animation is off-point. For instance, they used robotic arms and equipment for whenever the animated characters had to interact with the scenery. The most accurate example of something being off-point is early on in the movie when the ballet hippo from Fantasia sits down on a bench and sends the guy sitting on it flying up in the air when it breaks down under her weight. The timing for the bench tipping happens just slightly too late and the joke falls a little flat. It happens a few times when the human actors have to do slapstick, but the funny lines from them are at least delivered perfectly. The mystery in the movie is actually well done as well: Okay, you can pretty much tell who the villain of the movie is from the beginning but the motivation behind his actions are just complicated enough that you don't pick up on them right away (like you would in some of the worse written TV-episodes of Midsomer Murders forexample). Overall, great movie! Loved it.