Good Morning, Vietnam (1987)

 

Good Morning, Vietnam

Is it possible to make a comedy on the backdrop of the Vietnam War? Today I suppose the answer is “Why not?”, but in the eighties the Vietnam War was still a touchy subject and a comedy in that setting might well press any number of wrong buttons. Yet this is the tightrope “Good Morning, Vietnam” tries to walk and although you can sense how it tries not to be insensitive, it works decently well.

The story is based on a real radio host, Adrian Cronauer, played in the movie by Robin Williams, who was a big thing on the radio waves in Vietnam in 1965. This apparently is also about as far the true story goes. The movie’s Cronauer lands in a radio studio where half the staff, including Cronauer’s assistant Edward Garlick (Forest Whitaker), is wildly supportive of Cronauer’s irreverent style, while the other half, including Cronauer’s immediate superiors Steven Hauk (Bruno Kirby) and Phillip Dickerson (J.T. Walsh), are vehemently opposed to Cronauer.

And yes, Cronauer is a riot. One thing is his choice of music, but it is what he does in between that sets him apart. Williams was given free reign to just ramble away and he took the opportunity and knocked it out of the park. Cronauer soon learns that while his style causes some opposition among the conservative staff, there are news he simply is not allowed to use, which happens to be anything relevant to the G.I.s in Vietnam. Cronauer balks at that and tries to find ways around it. Half the comedy of the movie is Williams doing his thing, while the other half is the reactions from Dickerson and, especially, Hauk. Hauk considers himself a comedian, but when Cronauer gets suspended and Hauk takes over, it is hilariously evident that Hauk is an embarrassment, not least when he tries to argue that polka goes down very well with a certain segment of the listeners.

Outside the radio studio, Cronauer meets the reality of Vietnam. That is where the comedy largely disappears and the movie runs with a different message. Cronauer meets the crude attitude of American soldier to the local population on the local bar, and he befriend some locals at an English class, especially a brother, Tuan (Tung Thanh Tran), and a sister, Trinh (Chintara Sukapatana) who open his eyes to some harsh realities.

“Good Morning, Vietnam” takes place in a realistic universe where some characters may be slightly on the side of caricatures but with enough verisimilitude that we accept them. This means that Cronauer is a funny man in a very much not funny setting. The effect of this clash is both humorous and extra tragic and it gives an unexpected depth to the movie, but may also pull the rug from under the levity. Jokes are not so funny when people are dying, but maybe so much more necessary.

Robin Williams is so central to “Good Morning, Vietman” that it largely stands or falls with his performance. Luckily, Willams is in great shape in this movie, and it catapulted him into stardom. I do not always find Robin Williams funny, there is this particular edge to his comedy I am not fond of, but here it works very well. It may be the setting that works for him here, perhaps.

A curious detail is that most Vietnam movies of the eighties show plenty of explosions and soldiers, but very little of Vietnam itself. “Good Morning, Vietnam” is shot in Thailand and the local Vietnamese are actually Thai, but at least it is trying to present the country and the people it is supposed to take place in. The result is that Cronauer, representing the western visitor, is surprised to find how little he knows about the country in which he is fighting and how unwelcome his army actually is.

“Good Morning, Vietnam” has moments that works fantastic as comedy and moments of depth, but also seem nervous at trying to hit the right balance. There is a feeling of driving with the hand on the brakes, but it may be that it is this consideration th

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...).