Join 709 other subscribers
Join 709 other subscribers
All material displayed is protected under copyright 2011 by Chandler Swain, Chandler Swain Reviews and parent companies therefore and whatnot. No material will be copied without the written permission of above parties unless the offender wishes to suffer a cruel fate worse than any experienced by a spouse of any reality program housewife, skank or pseudo-trash celebrity. Thou hast been warned. Just kidding.
What is it we seek from the Cinema? It all depends on your point of view.
For some, the movies are a source of seeking refuge from everyday existence, a release from daily tensions and anxieties. This is escapism and it has been the driving factor of the Populist attraction to the movies since the origin of the form. However, if one were to alter the view and regard film without merely the Populist limitations of escapist diversion but also as an Art Form, the perspective deepens and enters the realm of Critical Thought.
Though inconsistent in perspective, each side has validity, and is actually far more dependent on the existence of the other than would first seem possible. In a nutshell, it is a battleground between perceived verisimilitude against the aesthetic Ideal.
In formulating the foundations of The Critical Establishment,
it is necessary to understand the characteristics of each perspective, to note the seemingly contradictory similarities and disparities, and their often inextricable interconnections.
In examining both Populist thought and Critical Thinking in Film, it is useful to define the key players in the field: the reviewers and the critics. Though seemingly cut from the same cloth, there is a world of difference. Reviewers are the professional manifestation of the Populist front; reviewers have a primary focus on entertainment value while critics evaluate under an aesthetic criteria, reviewers reward immediate gratification whereas critics seek artistry.
With the burgeoning of internet filmspeak, there is a misconception that the old model of printed press criticism is being eroded by the emergence of an equal internet critical roster. This, however, is a fallacy. One thing is for certain, even with a cursory glance at popular internet movie sites: reviewers are plentiful and genuine criticism of merit is as scarce as water in the Mojave Desert.
The reviewer will generally spend the bulk of their time reprinting the plot synopsis of a film, often almost verbatim from the printed materials of the studio. While this assists handily in filling a column, it does little to illuminate the worth of a film. The reviewer will often spend an inordinate amount of time relaying such unessential data as background gossip, "best" lists and an alarming volume of space on film finances- usually relating to either the film's budget (as if the writer had a financial stake in the enterprise) or opening weekend receipts, neither of which has the slightest bearing on the film's aesthetic achievement.
-to be continued
“First Blood” (1982) Ked Kotcheff’s “First Blood” shows considerable alterations from David Morrell’s trashy source novel of the same name, the majority of the most significant alterations conceding to the bloodlust of the marketable action movie audience in which matters of personal honor are superseded by a Rockyesque root-for-the-underdog drama, probably not coincidental since the screenplay was co-written by perpetual movie underdog Sylvester Stallone. However, after enduring a barrage of post-Vietnam era films portraying the American soldier as an uncontrollable psychopath unable to readjust to the either demonstrably caustic or apathetic civilian mindset, it is hardly a prescription of compensation to depict the same Vietnam vet as responding to that same arrogant dismissiveness by becoming an uncontrollable killing machine; antithetical toward an advancement in our understanding of the psychic damage done to hundreds of thousands, but certainly useful in reducing a national tragedy into a venue for the basest of gladiatorial huzzahs complete with bombastic scoring that is designed to stir the audience into a frenzy.
CHANDLER SWAIN REVIEWS 
A film of its time Chandler, and it must be seen as such. Good review nonetheless, and one for the ‘archives’. Best wishes, Pete.
I must admit that I like this movie. I read that Stallone did not deliver his lines well, and they cut out a lot of his dialogue. That led to an 80s trend of action heroes not talking. Is that true?
This is one of those movies that I’ve seen in pieces, but never been able to make it all the way through. It’s just too dumb, even when I’m in the mood for something violent and dumb.