• Film reviews

    #403 – Airwolf (1984)

    Airwolf (1984)

    Film review #403

    Director: Donald Bellisario

    SYNOPSIS: A military exercise to showcase a new state-of-the-art helicopter codenamed “Airwolf” takes a disturbing turn when its designer and pilot, Dr. Moffet, goes rogue by destroying the testing facility, and taking Airwolf to Libya. The head of a CIA division named “The Firm” travels to the home of Stringfellow Hawke, a recluse who was a test pilot for Airwolf, with an offer of a million dollars to reclaim the helicopter. String is reluctant to do it, but agrees to it on the condition that The Firm find his brother St. John, who went M.I.A. during the Vietnam war seventeen years ago…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSISAirwolf is a 1984 TV movie, which also served as the pilot for the Airwolf TV series. In the opening scene, we see a military training exercise showing off the highly-advanced military helicopter codenamed “Airwolf” to a U.S. senator. The whole scene is really just an excuse to get some action scenes with the helicopter in right from the start, and it certainly delivers, as the helicopter flies faster than the speed of sound, outmanoeuvres missiles and just blows a lot of things up, you get the action you would expect and a good idea of what Airwolf can do right from the outset, and should get viewers hooked right away, with the technical jargon being spliced in with the action which illustrates quite clearly what they’re talking about. At the end of the exercise, the pilot Dr. Moffet, who is also the designer of Airwolf, attacks the testing facility and escapes with Airwolf along with the two co-pilots. The themes of the story are rooted in cold-war military operations and espionage, and as such has a dark tone throughout, amplified by the use of strong language and high body count that gives it much more of a serious feel than contemporary vehicle-based shows such as Knight Rider.

    Archangel, The head of an intelligence agency only known as “The Firm,” visits the home of recluse Stringfellow Hawke (yes that is his real name, and yes it is the best name ever), who was a test pilot for Airwolf. Archangel attempts to recruit Hawke for a mission to steal Airwolf back from Moffet, who has joined up with Kaddafi’s forces in Libya. Hawke is reluctant to do so, but agrees to it on the condition that The Firm finds his brother St. John (does anyone in this family have a normal name?), who went missing in Vietnam on a military operation seventeen years ago, where Stringfellow made it out, but his brother did not. A lot of the film focuses on establishing Stringfellow’s character as a solitary, cultured man of few words, but who can also spring into action when necessary. His story is one of loss, not only of his brother, but also their parents who died when he was ten, and also his girlfriend in a car crash. This is played out as Archangel’s assistant Gabriela tries to get close to Hawke, but his coldness to her is a reminder that anyone who gets too close to him dies. Hawke’s character really drives a lot of the scenes, but there’s also action sequences interspersed within them as Moffet is piloting Airwolf to attack a variety of French and American forces, so it keeps giving some more action-oriented scenes to balance out the character development. Backing Hawke up is his friend Dominic Santini, who raised Stringfellow and his brother after their parents died. Dom plays a bit more of a comic relief role, but still a capable ally, and one that doesn’t upset the dark tone that the film goes for.

    We don’t get to see Stringfellow in Airwolf until the finale, but as mentioned there’s plenty of action scenes with Moffet as the pilot so you can get a good sense of what Airwolf can do (also good for a TV pilot in that it shows Airwolf in a variety of situations that could be employed over the series). A real helicopter is used for the flight scenes, and the stunts and choreography are all well done, as well as the interior of Airwolf being full of flashy (for the time) gadgets and screens. Moffet himself is clearly unhinged, and though it is never explained why he has gone rogue other than implying something that happened with a project that the Senator at the beginning was involved with, Moffet’s real motivation seems to simply be boredom and enjoys taking risks and blowing people up some light entertainment. Overall, Airwolf has a good mix of action, intrigue and espionage combined with some good character development that is balanced between the different personalities of the characters. The dark tone pushes some boundaries, and gives the story a decent intensity that allows viewers to remain engaged throughout the different elements of the plot. The ending is left rather open, but as a pilot for the TV series, it is meant to be picked up there (and it is). As a stand-alone film though, it is still likeable and entertaining enough to sit through.

  • Film reviews

    #17 – Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

    Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

    Film review #17

    Director: Michael Radford

    A 1984 movie adaption of the famous George Orwell novel 1984 where The Party is everything and all powerful.

    In a dystopian 1984, Winston Smith lives in a squalid existence in the ruined state of Oceania. His job is at the Ministry of Truth is to re-write history in accordance with the current political situation. He is haunted by memories of his childhood when his Mother and Sister disappeared. He also keeps a journal of his private thoughts, which is a thoughtcrime, breaking the law of no independent thought.

    One day, Winston meets a woman named Julia, and begins an affair with her. (It is against the law for people to fall in love), they live a secret life in an illegal apartment, and drink and eat various forbidden foods such as real coffee and real bread, whereas the workers usually get standard rations to live on, which helps support the parties war effort.

    The couple’s (somewhat) blissful existence comes to an end when the two are arrested by the Thought Police. It turns out that the man from whom they were renting the room from is a member of the ruling party. After a lengthy interrogation, Winston learns the truth: That the enemy of the state; Emmanuel Goldstein, does not exist and was invented by the party (The same is seemingly held true for Big Brother). His interrogation continues into Room 101, where he is confronted by his worst fear: Rats. Upon betraying Julia, insisting they inflict the pain on her, is deemed cured, and fit to be released.

    In the final scene, Winston is sitting in the Chestnut Tree Café, where he had seen previously rehabilitated criminals. He meets Julia, who informs him of how she betrayed him. Clearly having lost any affection for each other, she leaves, and Winston is left with the glaring image of Big Brother in the café…

    There have been a number of adaptations of 1984, into TV series, movies and radio dramas. This particular movie is of particular interest because it was produced in 1984, the year the novel was set. Obviously, when the novel was written in the late 40’s it was a look at the future, but when the movie was made, it was present day…yet it isn’t, because the 1984 it was produced in wasn’t much like the version in the movie. This brings up an interesting comparison between the one imagined by Orwell in 1949, and the actual one. It was however, shot in and around London, where the novel takes place, in the same year and months that the novel takes place.

    We perhaps can be thankful that 1984 did not turn out the way that Orwell imagined, which is depicted as a run-down city with no maintenance, and the population live in squaller. Writing after the end of World War II, after the bombing and destruction of Britain’s cities, it was probably difficult to imagine a future rising from the ashes of the war. Another interesting footnote in the development of the movie is that Orwell’s widow, Sonia Brownell only gave permission for the film to be adapted shortly before her death, under the condition that no “futuristic special effects” were used in making the film. This decision perhaps adds to the relevancy of the film, making as “present day” as possible, while still keeping the real and imagined apart.

    There is a sense of psychological terror in 1984 that is used to address society that isn’t really seen quite as strongly in other science-fiction works, though it still fits in with the British views of science-fiction. The film takes the concepts of invasion and governmental control to the last bastion of humanity: The inner-most thoughts of the mind. it is a dark and terrifying prospect that is raised, that people will yield control of their lives to the government under the blanket of fear of war and invasion.

    Overall, it is a positively received adaption of the book, in comparison to the 1956 US movie (Which gave the story a happier ending, but hasn’t been released since). The franchise has become a mainstay of science-fiction and British culture, with concepts such as “Big Brother”, “newspeak” and “thought police” being popularised by the novel. It also has influenced other films, such as Brazil in 1985, which deals with very similar themes but with a more black humour, or V for Vendetta. So, if you enjoyed 1984 the novel, this adaptation shouldn’t disappoint.

  • Film reviews

    #3 – 2010: The Year we Make Contact

    2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

    Film review #3

    Dir. Peter Hyams

    The sequel to the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you’re looking for more of the same artistic flare, you may be suprised.

    2001 and 2010 are a bit like chalk and cheese, but both of them are equally enjoyable, just probably in different ways. While 2001 has a very artistic direction and production, touching on the notions of the sublime and the numinous with it’s ambitious set design and large budget, 2010 is a more traditional cinematic venture with more a more traditional script and soundtrack.

    2010 elaborates more on the concepts introduced in 2001, one of the most fundamental parts of the story is the continuation of the Cold War between the United States and Russia, which was mentioned briefly (one line?) in the original movie becomes one of the main aspects of the story, with the U.S. and Russia on the verge of all out war. Being produced in 1984, when the Cold War was still ongoing, there was an obvious prediction that it would continue into 2001 and 2010 as depicted in their respective movies (Though the novels they were based on were published much earlier).

    The sets in 2010 are much darker and murkier than the 2001 designs. Maybe this is due to the ship being mainly set on board a Soviet ship The Alexei Leonov). The controls and monitors of the ship are adorned with Russian letters and characters. When the film switches to the shots of the Discovery (The U.S. Ship) the white, sterile environments could not be any more different. The re-creation of the ship from 2001 is very accurate, though only a few sets of the original ship was recreated probably due to budget constraints.

    The Discovery still looks more advanced than the Alexei Leonov, possibly because the Soviet ship is full of a lot of standard sci-fi set aesthetics, such as flashing buttons, and monitors with 80s computer graphics, which show their age when watched now (It’s pretty hard to be convinced that this ship could make it to Jupiter…), though the Discovery has aged much better, as it still looks futuristic and advanced, possibly because 2001 was produced to be as scientifically accurate as possible, whereas 2010 seems to take a few “scientific liberties” to up the action-drama element of the film.

    I like that 2010 doesn’t answer all the questions 2001 raises, and where it does, it seems to answer them with more questions, for example, 2001 did not show any aliens on-screen on the advice of Carl Sagan, who famously said that aliens would look so different to us, that trying to create that one screen could never do the truth justice. In the end. HAL becomes a hero of sorts, David Bowman from the original appears, but his appearance seems to suggest he has become a higher life-form of sorts, and the monoliths, shown in the first movie to be somehow responsible for advances in the evolution of man, now makes another impact on the evolution of man, stopping the Cold War and heralding a new era for the Earth. Never explaining what the monoliths are, just what they are capable of. As well as this, new life is just beginning on Jupiter’s moon Europa, who may one day join with humanity the way the east and west have now joined together on Earth.

    So overall, another interesting and enjoyable movie. Completely different genre to it’s predecessor, but still tells the story it begins well, and taking on the issues that were at the forefront of the agenda when it was produced. It does not try to emulate 2001’s groundbreaking style (Which would be a folly as far as I’m concerned), but tells it’s own story and leaves a poignant message about the mysteries of our universe.

    Finally, should the title of the film be changed to The Year We Made Contact, now 2010 is in the past? Or should it still be make since making contact with aliens is still something we have yet to do? Hmm…