Withnail and I (1987)

 

Withnail and I

Doper buddies on adventures is a bit of a movie trope. Whether it be “Trainspotting”, “Up in Smoke” or “Harold and Kumar... xyz” they follow a certain pattern. The dopers are pretty messed up, they get into crazy stuff that works for comedy and they get into some shit, partly from substance abuse and partly because they have problems taking responsibility for their lives, that either is, or could potentially be, very tragic. “Withnail and I” falls squarely in the middle of that trope.

Withnail and I are also the labels of the two main characters of “Withnail and I”. Withnail (Richard E. Grant) comes of a rich family, but slums it in Camden under a pretence at aiming to become an actor, but actually avoiding any kind of responsibility while drinking, smoking and doping his life away. “I” (Paul McGann) is Withnail’s unnamed roommate and occasional narrator of the movie. He may be slightly less wasted than Withnail and may take a bit more responsibility but is also prone to a very nervous disposition. We are in 1969 and there is a sense that this may be “I” looking back at his life back then.

They live in squalor, none of them are getting any acting jobs and “I” suggests they leave town. Withnail has a rich uncle, Monty (Richard Griffiths), with a cottage in the Lake District, so they go there to get him to lend it to them. Monty, extrovertly homosexual, has an eye on “I” so they get the key and go there.

The majority of the movie takes place in and around the cottage and this is also scene for most of the comedy. These two bozos are completely unequipped for life in the countryside and their blundering about result in one absurd situation after the other. Cooking a hen in a tea kettle, fishing with a shotgun or getting chased by a bull all works because of the almost alternative reality these dopers live in. When Monty shows up at the cottage and starts hitting on “I”, the trip gets a notch wilder and more absurd.

“Withnail and I” is sometimes described as plotless, but that is not the case at all. It is the classic doper-buddy plot where the leads are floating around in their outwardly fun but actually miserable lives, then goes on an adventure that may or may not make them move on in their lives. “I” uses the experience as a wake-up call and breaks with this lifestyle while “Withnail” is way too cowardly to look up from his self-imposed exile from reality and responsibility.

Yet, this is not a moralistic tale. It is far to busy having fun with Withnail and I for that. Sure, there are consequences to the liberties they take, even if Withnail often get away with his stunts, but even the consequences are often milked for comedy, such as Withnail getting arrested for drunk driving, then caught trying to use a crazy device to supply a clean urine sample. This is also a British, very British movie meaning that no matter how absurd the situation, it is always grounded in a British reality that makes it all believable and to an extend, relatable. Unfortunately, it also means that some of the comedy may only be picked up by fellow Brits. My copy was not texted, and I found myself occasionally lost.

“Withnail and I” is an okay movie and decently fun, but it is neither as outrageous nor as powerful as the best in this genre. We can clearly sense that especially Withnail is a lost case who will get nowhere, but we are not talking “Trainspotting” crisis, nor does the idiotic stupor lead to the mad scenes of “Up in Smoke” or “Harold and Kumar goes to White Castle”. In that sense “Withnail and I” is almost too cozy. Fending off the lusty uncle Monty is the level of danger “I” experiences, beside the threat of being stuck in a lifestyle that would eventually eat him up.

This is why I found “Withnail and I” a decent but unexceptional watch. I guess I expected more from it. It does deliver, but does it deliver enough?

  

Evil Dead II (1987)

 

Off-List: Evil Dead II

The third slot in my off-List category is usually allocated to a Danish movie, but I since I have two of those on my main list for 1987, this leaves room for “Evil Dead II”. I am usually not much for sequels, but “Evil Dead II” is more of a reboot than a sequel and its status in years following has taken it beyond the original “Evil Dead” movie. At least so it was back at my old campus in the nineties. I have not watched it since and I realized now that I watched it again, how much of it I had forgotten.

While “Evil Dead II” is a retelling of the “Evil Dead” story, reviewed earlier on this blog, there are a number of substantial differences. This time Ash (Bruce Campbell) is taking his girlfriend Linda out in the woods to a deserted cabin. It does not take long before he finds an old book, the famous “Necronomicon”, and a tape recording of the professor who used to live in the cabin spelling out the magic words that summons evil. In short order Linda is sucked out of the window, returns as a monster and is killed and buried by Ash. Of course, she does not stay there, and her different body parts continue to cause havoc. Ash is tormented by the evil and occasionally possessed by it as well.

The professor’s daughter, Annie (Sarah Berry) and her partner, Ed (Richard Domeier) are trying to get to the cabin, but finding a bridge destroyed enlist local hillbillies Jake (Dan Hicks) and Bobby Joe (Kassie Wesley) as guides. This of course makes the situation spin even more out of control with the resurrection of the professor’s wife in the basement, and horrible deaths to each of the newcomers. When it is down to just Annie and Ash, a dark ritual seems the only way out... or in...

The point of “Evil Dead II” is pretty much the same as “Evil Dead”. A small group of people under siege from evil forces trying to get to them, being the excuse for a lot of gory mayhem. The result is over the top and hardly credible, but with so much comedy thrown in that the ridiculousness of it all is forgiven. This is classic horror comedy.

It is obvious that the team worked with a larger budget on this one as all the gory parts are far more elaborate than in the original “Evil Dead”, but it maintains the style and tone of that one. This still feels like a bunch of amateurs having fun, they just have more money to spend on it. With the exception of Campbell, none of the actors have other qualities than being good at screaming (which they do very well) and internal logic is not exactly the strong side of this movie. But we also well know that this is not why we watch it. It is the adolescent playfulness with which this movie is imbued, that makes it endearing, if that is even possible to say when monsters are chopped to pieces with chainsaws and spades and what not.

We even get the classic prepping montage when Ash arms himself with shotgun and chainsaw to take on the monsters. It is so gung-ho that I could not stop laughing and this is essentially what makes it worth watching today. Modern B-movies are generally too overworked even when they try to be funny. The gung-ho style of the Evil Dead series, at least the old stuff, makes them actually work, so while this looks dated, it is dated in a good way, if that even makes sense. There is an honesty about the hijinks that is refreshing.

Sam Raimi would go on to make A-list movies and good ones at that, but it is when he reverts to some of this old style that he is best. These old, gory horror comedies can something that is difficult to do today.

For anybody nostalgic about the eighties, “Evil Dead II” is a must. As I am not the typical horror enthusiast I cannot say how this stands in that hall of fame, only that it still works for me.

 

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

 

Full Metal Jacket

One of the recurrent themes of Stanley Kubrick’s production is the corruption and corruptive effect of militarism. “Paths of Glory”, “Dr. Strangelove” and to a large extent “A Clockwork Orange” all carry that line. This message is nowhere condensed as strongly as in “Full Metal Jacket”, Kubrick’s Vietnam War epos.

“Full Metal Jacket” plays out in two acts. The first act takes place in boot camp for the US Marine Corps. Without any introduction we see new recruits arrive at the camp and we are directly thrown into the welcome speech by Drill Sergeant L. Hartman (R. Lee Ermey). It is quite long and the point of it is to make the recruits understand they are worthless and only he matters in their world now. It is one, long dressing down.

As the recruits go through training it is clear that Leonard Lawrence (Vincent D’Onofrio), called Gomer Pyle by Hartman, is having a hard time getting things right. This earns him scorn and abuse from Hartman and when Hartman makes it the entire platoon’s problem, Pyle finds himself very much alone. James Davis (Matthew Modine), “Joker” by Hartman, is assigned to help Pyle. They form an uneasy friendship and it is largely due to Joker that Pyle completes his training. At graduation Pyle takes his own life as well as that of Hartman.

In the second act, Joker is in Vietnam as a journalist for an army news agency. When the Tet offensive in 68 hits, he is sent north to a battlefield where he reunites with one of his friends from boot camp, “Cowboy” (Arliss Howard). Embedded in his squad he joins the fighting, a fight that seems to confuse those taking part in it. The only brutal fact seems to be that people die. When the squad gets pinned down by a sniper in a position where they are not even supposed to be, the pointless dying reaches a climax.

“Full Metal Jacket” can be seen as two separate movies with apparently little tying them together. With the death of Pyle and Hartman at the conclusion of act one, it feels is if that concluded that story. When the movie continues in Vietnam Joker and Cowboy are the only links to the first act. The story now moves at a different pace, with different characters and with a seemingly different plot. Commenters on the movie have noted that the second part appear aimless, that it seems to go nowhere.

I read the two parts differently. Part one is the destruction of the civilized individual in order to create the Homo Militaris, and the second part is showing this new crippled creation is further destroyed for no apparent purpose in the war. The second part feels aimless exactly on purpose. The skirmish is just another pointless encounter that kills people but does not change anything. It is completely generic.

There are quite a few movies out there that follow soldiers through basic training and then on mission, both dramas and comedies and they usually have that in common that the unit is fused together through the hardships of training, that a bond is created and something is won. “Full Metal Jacket” has none of that. There is no camaraderie, there is no upside. Basic training is destruction, not creation and while it may feel like a miss if you are thinking of “Band of Brothers” or “Stripes”, it is entirely on purpose. The only fusion taking place is the common rejection of humanity.

The most spectacular character of the movie is without a doubt Ermey’s Hartman. I learned that Ermey was in fact an actual marine drill instructor and that he added a lot to the role himself. He is completely believable and scary as hell. It is telling that he is also the only character that really stands out. Even Joker, the lead of the second half, is only really an observer and an uncommitted one at that. In the final scenes, even his humanity seems to die. I think it is deliberate that we hardly get to touch these soldiers. There are glimpses of something else underneath, but soon after they are usually dead or somewhere else. Destroyed by the machine of war.

I do not know if “Full Metal Jacket” qualifies as an entertaining movie, but it is certainly an effective movie at conveying its message, even if it never spells it out. It is ugly and pointless in its plot, but anything else in its message. That makes it very much a Kubrick movie. If you are a fan of Kubrick, there is no way around this one.

 

Raising Arizona (1987)

 

Raising Arizona

“Raising Arizona” is the first movie on the List from Ethan and Joel Coen. The Coen brothers is a remarkable unit in the film industry who, like Powell and Pressburger back in the forties, make standout movies that are entirely their own. We often talk about a Coen brother movie and understand it to be that very specific kind of movie with unique elements that nobody can emulate. Whether you like it or not is a matter of personal taste but as with Hitchcock, you have a fairly good idea what you are in for up front. “Raising Arizona” is very much a Coen brothers movie.

Herbert I. “Hi” McDunnough (Nicolas Cage) is a repeat offender who cannot miss an opportunity for robbing convenience stores. Every time he is back in jail, he gets his mugshot taken by “Ed”, short for Edwina (Holly Hunter). This happens so often that eventually Hi proposes to Ed and she accepts.

Ed and Hi gets settled in some ramshackle shed of a home in the middle of nowhere, Arizona. Ed wants a baby, but eventually learns she is barren. Due to Hi’s criminal record they cannot adopt so when they learn that a local rich furniture tycoon, Nathan Arizona Sr., gets quintets, they decide to take one of them as he obviously has plenty. Nathan Arizona Jr. becomes very valuable with a reward of 25,000$ for bringing him back and several parties take an interest in the little boy, including Hi’s strange boss and wife (Sam McMurray and Coen regular Frances McDormand), two escapees from the local prison and old friends of Hi, Gale (another regular, John Goodman) and Evelle (William Forsythe) as well as the mysterious badass bounty hunter Smalls (Randall Cobb), who hates little things.

The result is a chase and hunt that must be seen to be believed.

“Raising Arizona” plays out as a comedy. Not because the plot is particularly comedic, but because the characters are completely left field. If you set oddball character in regular roles and let it play out, you get the recipe for a Coen brothers movie and that is exactly what we get here. Sure, there are some setups and some... not quite believable situations, but largely the story and movie is character driven. It is strange and wacky because the characters do or say what such oddball characters would be doing or saying. The Coen brothers simply let it play out with no filter. Hi has little backbone and acts impulsively because that is the character he is. Same with Ed. She is emotional and really wants a child, so she does what she does. Gale and Evelle are scatterbrained fools, so they enthusiastically do a lot of stupid shit. Because it all is so far from normal, the situations become rather extreme and so the comedy lies in where that takes us.

It is easy to sit on the side and think that all this is awfully silly and these people must be stupider than toast bread, but there is always that thread of normality that anchors a Coen brothers movie in the real world and, as in “Burn after Reading”, although the characters are completely out there, we can recognize something in them, at least their emotions and motivations. They just act out what we would normally supress. With that anchor we can actually relate and recognize and it becomes funny rather than weird.

While this is a typical description of a Coen brothers movie, it is particularly true of “Raising Arizona”. The pace is faster than the typical Coen brothers movie and maybe that is the only reservation I have with the movie. It is almost too fast. That works fantastic in the chase scenes, but in the character building part, the pacing makes the movie cartoonish and the above mentioned thread becomes too thin.

I liked the movie, but I also expected it to be more fun than it actually was. The Coen brothers went all in on this one and maybe they should have restrained themselves a bit, grounding the movie a little better. But then again, that is what makes a Coen brothers movie fly.   

Spaceballs (1987)

 

Off-List: Spaceballs

The second off-List movie for 1987 (and the first review of 2026) is “Spaceballs”. This is in my humble opinion one of the best spoof-movies ever made, up there with “Airplane!” and “Naked Gun” and perhaps the funniest movie to come from Mel Brooks. Yes, it is silly and the story makes little to no sense, but I laugh myself silly every time I watch it. It also happens to be one of my son’s favourite movies.

In a galaxy very, very, very, very, very far away an evil and ridiculous empire called Spaceballs, run but Spaceballs out of Spaceball city wants to steal the atmosphere of neighbouring, peaceful and somewhat medieval looking Druidia after have “foolishly squandered away” their own. To this end the Spaceballs want to kidnap Princess Vespa (Daphne Zuniga) to get the access code to the shield protecting the atmosphere. The Spaceball team is lead by President Skroob (Mel Brooks himself), Colonel Sandurz (George Wyner) and the awesome Rick Moranis as Lord Dark Helmet.

Princess Vespa escapes from her own wedding and is almost caught by the Spaceballs when she is saved by Lone Starr (Bill Pullman) and his sidekick Barf (John Candy), half dog, half human, in their Winnebago-turned-spaceship. Then goes the chase though a desert planet, a meet with the Yoda lookalike Yogurt (Mel Brooks again), a space prison and a final showdown on the Mega-maid.

If you have not guessed it already, this a spoof on “Star Wars”, and many of the best jokes are referencing that franchise. Not every joke works, but in the usual Mel Brooks style, there are so many of them and enough of them are great for this to be consistently fun. Rick Moranis, of whom I am a great fan, is the perfect anti-Darth Vader with his diminutive stature and oversize helmet. That man opens his mouth and I am laughing. It is not wrong to say that the best comedy in the movie is involving him. While many, it not all, his lines are quotable, you need his face and voice to really make it work.

In fact, “Spaceballs” is blessed with excellent comedic actors. This was an early part for Bill Pullman and although his part is to be heroic rather than funny, he does pull it off. John Candy is... John Candy. How can you not love him? And then of course, Mel Brooks appearing twice. One of the running jokes is that Brooks’ Yogurt is on a mission to merchandize the movie, a pun at the intensive merchandizing of “Star Wars” and throughout the movie we see Spaceball blankets, Spaceballs toilet paper, Spaceballs mugs etc.

Other movies of the genre are referenced as well such as “Planet of the Apes” and the “Star Trek” franchise. The best reference however is when Lone Starr and Barf see the crew from “Alien” at a space truck-stop. John Hurt reprises his scene with an alien coming out of his stomach after which the Xenomorph dons a little hat and a stick and gives a variety song before escaping to the kitchen. This one has me flat with laughter every time.

The spoof movie genre is more often a miss than a hit for me. Some time in the ninetieth I simply stopped watching thing, they were getting too stupid, but there was a time, from the mid-seventies to around 1990 where they often hit it right. I do not know if it was the quality of the jokes or the actors that made a difference, but my best guess is that they treated their viewers as adults (childish ones...) rather than 10-year-olds.

“Spaceballs”, along with “Naked Gun” and “Airplane!” are the ones I can always go back to. “Spaceballs” is the only one of the three not on the List and that is a miss.     

Happy New Year 2026

 

Happy New Year 2026

A new year is approaching, and it is time for my annual address to... whoever find their way to this blog.

2025 was not a particularly great year. It used to be a casual off-hand thing to say that the world is going crazy. In 2025 it felt as if it is really happening. I find myself increasingly shutting down on international affairs and while I know this ostrich mentality is not really doing any good, I find a lot of comfort in watching movies from the eighties and reading books from the nineteenth century.

I did slow down though on the movies. Only 45 reviews in 2025 of which 39 were List movies. That took me from 1985 to 1987, making this the shortest step so far on this mission. Some of this was due to some very long movies, but most of it was simply lack of time. I love the eighties and the movies have generally been great. Should I mention a particular movie that made an impression, it must be “Tampopo”, though watching “Shoah” with my wife felt very important.

On my book blog I managed 9 books which is pretty good. This took me from “Father Goriot”, 1835 to “Dead Souls”, 1842, a span of 7 years. Those have been very interesting books written some of the most famous classic authors. Maybe surprisingly, the best of them was “The Lion of Flanders” by a, to me, completely unknown author (Hendrik Conscience). This year also included the most difficult to find book-so-far, “Camera Obscura”, which I read in Google translated Dutch.

Anyway, I just want to wish everybody a happy New Year. May the Swartch be with you all (guess what movie is coming up...).

 

Babette's Feast (Babette's Gaestebud) (1987)

 

Babettes Gæstebud

When I was in high school our teacher asked us to watch “Babettes Gæstebud” (Babette’s Feast) while she was away. You should never ask this of high school students. We watched “Dirty Harry” instead and agreed to simply say about “Babettes Gæstebud” that it was “okay, but a bit slow”. This is actually deeply unfair. “Babettes Gæstebud” may be a bit slow but it is a great movie with a lot to think about.

We are on the west coast of Jutland in what was and still is known as the bible belt of Denmark. The only place name given is the manor of Nørre Vosborg and that makes perfect sense. It is the 1830’ies and out there in a small community lives an elderly priest (Pouel Kern) with his two young and beautiful daughters, Fillipa (Hanne Stensgaard/Bodil Kjer) and Martine (Vibeke Hastrup/Birgitte Federspiel). They form the core of a very pious sect in their village. All three are convinced their religious duty goes ahead of anything else, certainly ahead of something as trivial as marriage. All suitors are rebuffed. This includes the young Swedish lieutenant Lorens Löwenhielm (Gudmar Wivesson/Jarl Kulle) who even joins the sect for awhile through his pious aunt.

Another visitor is the French opera singer Achille Papin (Jean Philippe Lafont). He gets infatuated with the voice of Fillipa and is convinced she will take Paris with storm, but she withdraws when she feels uncomfortable with those prospects.

Fast forward to 1871. The now middle-aged sisters get a visitor from France. This is a refugee from the Paris commune whom Papin has recommended to seek refuge with the sisters. He mentions that Babette (Stéphane Audran) can cook and as she offers to work without wages, she becomes housekeeper for the sisters. Babette slowly learns the language, customs and cuisine of her hosts and is well liked.

Another 14 years passes and the now elderly religious community is falling apart. Pettiness and quarrels dominate their meetings and with the 100-year anniversary of the long dead pastor coming up the sisters are worried. Then Babette wins a large sum of money in the French lottery (10,000 francs) and offers, insists, on preparing a French dinner for the anniversary party. She just needs to do a bit of shopping. When her groceries arrive, the community is shocked. Everything looks very outlandish and suspect. Convinced they are in for a witch-sabbath, they decide to stay quiet during the meal and ignore what they are eating.

For the feast, Löwenhielm shows up, now a general, after 35 years of absence and as the dishes come in, he is the only one who recognizes how exceptional the meal is. In fact, the highlight of the dinner, “Cailles en Sarcophage”, can only come from the former famous head chef of the exclusive Parisian restaurant Cafe Anglais, revealing that Babette, the humble housekeeper is in fact a renowned master chef. The effect of the dinner on the guests is remarkable. From the initial quietness they thaw and the meal functions as a catalyst to mend all their quarrels and bring them all together in joy.

This is an amazing movie, a curious mix of “Ordet” and “Tampopo”. This religious community who are longing so much for their paradise that they are almost dead to the world, being outdone in generosity and spiritual gift by this French woman and her food. There is a power in this meal, this gift, that mends all their problems, bring Martine and Löwenhielm together and teaches the sisters a lesson in humility. The great thing of course is that Babette is not religious at all. Never does she take part in the community worshipping, yet her life, appearance and gratitude are the Lutheran Christian values in practice. In a community of self-righteous parsimonious fools, she is the saint.

What starts out as a fairly dry and slow story begins to reveal cracks of comedy about midway into the movie. The community are revealed as barbarian next to Babatte and when we get to the actual feast, this becomes glaringly exposed. The dinner is not made to mock them or expose them, but to watch their confusion and how they look to the general for clues how to eat the food is hilarious. They are like children watching a plane for the very first time and reversely knowing now the capabilities of Babette thinking back on how she was instructed in preparing dried fish and øllebrød becomes a joke activated half an hour after it was planted.

The production value is high, higher than was common for Danish movies at the time and much care was made to make it look authentic. It is also absolutely believable. The one point where the illusion falls apart is the accents. All Danish is spoken as standard Danish and not a hint of west coast dialect. I would have loved if they would have made the attempt, yet the price would have been that not even Danish people would have understood a word of it.

“Babettes Gæstebud” won the Best Foreign Language Film award for 1987 and is apparently on the Vatican list of “Most important films”. The full menu can be found on the Wiki page of the movie and is indeed a feast even to read. This is a great movie even if you only watch it for the food, but it offers so much more.

Back is the day our teacher only learned we never watched the movie on our graduation day, yet the joke is on us. We missed something not watching “Babette’s Feast”.