THE SATURDAY NIGHT ‘3-WAY’ #2
“… If You Liked Our First Edition, Then It’s Quite Possible You May Enjoy This…”
— Gazz, Stale Popcorn
For those unfamiliar with the concept of what our little three-tier geekism is all about see the link above and have a flick through the first edition of something I’m very childishly calling The Saturday Night ‘3-Way’. Essentially once a month me and my good friends ‘Jimm’ and ‘Foxx’ are going to get together, put on a triple bill of movies (both old and new), sometimes very loosely themed, get drunk, heckle each other, enjoy what the film’s have to offer us and then write it up for your amusement, throwing along some original trailer links etc. to get you in the general vibe of what we’re indulging in!
As with the first edition, this is a long read but - for fan’s of cult cinema - it’s a worthy one. Go gentle, be supportive and please make some time to pass comment in the Talkbacks. Both of my friends put a lot of effort into doing this with me! The first “3-Way” was, as I said last time, SO GOOD and SO ENJOYABLE though, we all wondered whether it could be topped. Well… this was an relatively alcohol free affair with movies that didn’t “gel” together as well as we’d hoped or only served to disappoint, with accusastions of “semi-Streisandism” along the way. Sadly.
What are we offering you this time round? Well, make the leap into the article why don’t you? But let me tease you with the following; a forgotten movie of the 80s which I recently jokingly referred to as “the Mamma Mia of action movies”, a zombieless 80s Romero movie that’s NOT The Crazies or Martin AND a “video nasty” from the 80s that’s more camp then nasty.
You in?!? We can only hope that this is more of a fun experience for you to read then it was to go through because, well, we’ve got ten more of these fuckers scheduled in over the next ten months! This one took place in August and is coming to you late now because of ‘Jimm’s’ perfectionism. We’ve already had Number 3 and it was a fucking riot that I can’t wait to publish. You’ll be seeing that in the last week of October! In the meantime…
First of all, clearly wishing to capture the mood of that evening AND set the mood for this piece, ‘Foxx’ has a little introduction for you all:
“… So the second three way takes place with a collection of films I have never heard of; Streets of Fire, Knightriders and Class of 1984. I am not surprised I have never heard of these and with the night strolling along I wished I was blind and deaf, bar for about 30 seconds collectively from all three movies. To be honest there isn’t a lot you can say about these movies apart from the fact, personally I thought they were shite. I have witnessed some tripe in my life and watched some absolute drivel that try to pass themselves off as a “film” but Jesus H Christ these three movies took the biscuit and then some!”
Thank you Mr ‘Foxx’ sir, and without further ado. Let’s get cracking eh?
** HEREBE SPOILERS AHEAD **
—–
STREETS OF FIRE (1984)
Dir: Walter Hill
Scr: Larry Gross / Walter Hill
(Click here for the original trailer)
Plot: A mercenary returns to his hometown and finds himself caught up in a mission to rescue his ex-girlfriend, a singer who has been kidnapped by the local gang that now control the city.
GAZZ: Regular readers of the now defunct Off The Shelf will know that I’m a bit of a fan of this film. I love a lot of Walter Hill’s stuff and I have a soft spot for this flick as a result, outside of my Diane Lane obsession (which reared its head in an awkward moment when ‘Foxx’ tried to heckle the film during a scene when Lane was “getting her freak on” and I had to shush him and reveal my thoroughly perverted tendencies). The fact that this film failed to connect with my friends was a bit of both a gut punch and a personal embarrassment. I’d talked it up quite a bit to them over the years and told them that they “had” to see it and, well, seeing this film fail to engage them was a hark back to my days as a stand-up comedian out in Australia when I would regularly die a death up on stage.
Streets of Fire isn’t a “perfect” piece of cult cinema. Far from it in fact. I accept this. But I genuinely admire it for the fact that it tries to be so many different things and fails at all of them whilst being beautifully shot at the same time. I like Hill’s attempt to infuse the visual style of the film with a mix of futurism, 1950s retro style costuming and modern (well… 80s) sensibilities. I like the fact also that it tries - and you need to keep the word “tries” in mind throughout - to be a sort of musical/action/romance and kind of falls short in each area.
A young Willem Dafoe (as Raven Shaddock - the ‘head’ bad guy) , in his bare-chest/leather dunagrees/fishing-waders combo is about as threatening as farting whilst caught up in a tornado. My heckling remarks regarding throwing a question mark over his character’s sexuality was met with unhappy glances from ‘Jimm’ (which, by the next movie, evolved into an outright accusation of latent homosexuality!). I also find that with every viewing the film loses a little bit of its appeal due to the anti-climactic nature of its finale: All forces meet out in the street, you think you’re going to get a big battle, then the sledgehammers come out and you think you’re going to get some epic man-to-man battle and then… it’s over before it starts. The movie equivilent of sex with me!
Watching Streets of Fire, you kind of get the impression that all involved are bouncing along, staging a song-and-dance number (all musical numbers are created by Jim Steinman and the score is performed by Ry Cooder - although there’s too few to earn it the tag “musical”) before looking at one another and saying “This isn’t working is it?” and jumping into an action sequence before stopping and going “The ladies will be getting bored with this stuff right? Bring on the romance!” It never stops long enough in any one area for you to truly engage. And whilst this never harmed something as fantasticaly realised as Big Trouble In Little China, that movie had charisma in its performances left, right and centre. This movie has Michael Pare. It would have benefited hugely from Kurt Russell. Or even Sly Stallone. But it got Michael Pare.
Now ‘Foxx’ has never met Michael Pare, nor do I think he has encountered any of his other “screen work”. But should ‘Foxx’ meet him, I think Pare is going to walk away from such a meeting with a boot shaped impression - courtesy of ‘Foxx’ - around his head and scrotum. His performance in this film is pretty much as horrendous as you could possibly imagine. It’s awful. It’s completely uninvolving, wooden and there isn’t a single ounce of chemistry between him and Diane Lane. If I had to put the blame on anyone for what kills this film then I would put the blamely firmly at his door. ‘Foxx’ took Michael Pare’s lack of acting ability quite personally, or so I gathered. I can’t give him back the ninety odd minutes of his life that he feels has been taken from him at the hands of Pare (and most probably the film as a whole) and as a result, if I was Michael Pare, I’d go into hiding.
I like Streets of Fire. I like it for what you can see it wants to be, not necessarily what it is. With news of some sort of semi-sequel/reimagining in the works, I have to say I’d much rather Walter Hill was given a bit more money and time to go back around and have another crack at realising this with a better cast! It killed me a little that my friends didn’t… well ‘Jimm’ kind of ‘accepted’ it from what I could gather but then he is more open to admiring a film for its ‘try-hard-but-fail’ sensibilities then ‘Foxx’ who has a strict “if you haven’t shown me intestines within the first six minutes then I’m going to fuck your film up” policy.
Worst of all though, it kind of set a tone for the night whereby, when it had finished, there was a bit of blank faced, head-shaking of the “What The Fuck Was That?” variety. For me, this was the best film of the evening. For ‘Jimm’? Well, his opinion is up next and for ‘Foxx’? There wasn’t a minute go by after the ten minute mark where he didn’t fail to let us know about his hatred of this flick, ha ha.
JIMM: Streets of Fire is an odd amalgam of tropes and clichés which despite some pretty major flaws manages in an idiosyncratic sort of way to approach a kind of greatness. It is a mess of contradictions and inconsistencies abound, but there’s such ambition on display in its style and momentum - in its chutzpah – which I think is impossible to ignore and wrong to dismiss. Despite the fact that it never really coalesces or coalesces over the course of its 90 minute running time this film is always fundamentally entertaining.
Take the opening, the very first thing you see before the film actually starts is a caption reading ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE. At this distance – I’m writing a few weeks after viewing –I really can’t say if this is an inspired or redundant move. At the time I smiled, and thought “What a great way to open a film, what a neat way to ease you into such a self-consciously mythic story.” But now another part of me thinks “But surely all films are set in another time, another place? This is just stupid posturing and, worse, a tacit admission that the weird anachronistic faux-fifties look is extremely unconvincing…”
Disappointment dominates my recollection of this film; disappointment that more attention has gone into the sets than the plot; disappointment that characters as engaging as Amy Madigan’s McCoy and Willem Dafoe’s Raven Shaddock are given next to nothing to do; disappointment that the “other time” is just a weird imaginary 1950-something synthesised with nineteen-eighties sensibilities and technologies; disappointment that the “other place” is a half-remembered, half-fantasised eastern US city, little more than a budget Gotham… Whilst distinctive, the film is also monotonous: The first shot of neon light reflected on wet roads has a certain evocative power but by the fourth and fifth shot of other lights in other puddles it’s hard not to grow weary of the whole thing.
The highlights of the film are almost perfectly balanced with lowlights in such a manner that you start to wonder if the whole enterprise has been sabotaged, self-sabotaged even. For example Rick Moranis’ Billy Fish has a certain annoying, sleazy appeal and it is fun to see him playing something other than his typical benign nebbish, but Michael Paré as the film’s hero Tom Cody is almost comically wooden and resolutely uncharismatic. At times the music achieves a sort of trash rock perfection, but then the movie is bookended by distended, over-produced eighties rock which, in its slick tinny swagger, feels like the antithesis of the vintage menace Streets of Fire appears to be trying to evoke. The same goes for the cycle gang’s costumes – a nice touch, evidently inspired by The Wild One, they are contrasted with the absolutely baffling use of what I can only describe as bondage-waders for Shaddock’s later appearances. There’s an annoying abundance of over-egged fades and wipes punctuating many of the scene changes… this list feels like it could go on and on. Suffice to say in this film any sly, witty touches are always drowned out by the surrounding visual and stylistic hysteria.
KNIGHTRIDERS (1981)
Dir: George A. Romero
Scr: George A. Romero
(Click here for the original trailer)
Plot: A travelling troupe of modern day bikers-turned-jousters-and-performers are slowly cracking under the pressure of hick cops, financial troubles and their failure to live up to their own ideals…
GAZZ: I’m going to be controversial here I know but - outside of his Dead movies - there’s not a lot of George A. Romero’s work that I’ve got a lot of affection for. I know, I know. So, shoot me! I haven’t seen Martin. I wasn’t too crazy about The Crazies but there was a lot that I did like about it. Monkey Shines is a film I didn’t know existed until we had ‘3-Way #3′ and it came up on a trailer reel. And Knightriders? Well… let’s discuss Knightriders!
I’ve had a long term opinion that Romero is an “ideas man” first and foremost and directing his actors isn’t something that is particularly high up on his list of priorities. As brilliant as his Dead movies are, quality performances aren’t in abundance. I posed this assertion on the night and ‘Jimm’ kind of disagreed with me, posing quite an intelligent counter-argument. Though not so intelligent that I felt like changing my opinion. What Knightriders has on its side that a lot of Romero movies (until Land with its hiring of John Leguizamo) doesn’t is the presence of a classically trained actor - Ed Harris. And Ed Harris is the best thing in this movie.
I couldn’t quite get a handle on this flick, if I’m honest. I was really disappointed because I was so well versed in the other films on the agenda, and I’d been so intrigued by this film for so long, that I kinda came to viewing it with too strong an assumption that I would just “love” it based off Harris’ presence, the trailer and the mere concept of modern day jousting knights on motorbikes.
However, it felt just over-whelmingly plotless to me. There were so many things that it could have been along with so many things we (or should I say “I”) wanted it to be. It was nothing but a meandering barrage of scenes that take us from one vignette to another, each one kind of suggesting an over-all “theme” that is contradictory to the last. This in itself would be okay if the film converged on itself by the finale and became all things to everyone but it doesn’t. It just peters out.
At first there’s a quaint thrill in seeing old-school stunt work up there on the screen with real people hammering themselves off real motorbikes at speed, especially in the age of constant CGI assistance. But then just as the film has dragged itself into the ground with tediousness, another stunt display is rolled out. Then another, and another. It becomes boring.
And on and on the film rolls… much like my review. This film is 145 minutes. By the one hour forty mark I was beyond restless and queries regarding how long was left were met with blank faces. I was so bored by this film that the only joy I could find was in heckling the token gay character and then increasing said heckling when I spotted that it annoyed ‘Jimm’. [I never said I wasn't childish!] This in turn led to libellous remarks that I am a closet homosexual myself. After I had flounced out of the room and hidden by Barbara Streisand and Bette Midler CD boxsets, I returned and with a flourish of my hand in ‘Jimm’s’ general direction I decided to defend my hetrosexual honour. Anyway, I digress.
When I discovered I still had another hour to go I became a little overly-dramatic in my displeasure. But I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that my overly-dramatic disgust at just how bloated and uncontrolled this film is, was probably the highlight of our time in the company of Knightriders. Bonus points awarded, though, for opening the film with some gratuitous female nudity! Bonus points duly deducted for following said shot with footage of a buck naked Ed Harris!
JIMM: On first inspection Knightriders appears to be the story of King Arthur’s court updated but it’s much, much more confused than that. Motorbikes replace horses, armour is made of plastic and knights roam around putting on jousting contests in the back-lots and outskirts of small town America. It’s a premise so odd, so unwieldy, that it’s hard to know what to make of it before, during and after viewing.
Looking at director George A. Romero’s filmography you see that his previous two movies – Martin and Dawn of the Dead – are high-water marks in 1970’s horror, two superlative but flawed pictures offering fresh angles on old ideas and demonstrating a keen sense of the psychological and sociological nightmares of the twentieth century. I suppose if you look back at the subject matter of these earlier films – A young man who thinks he’s a vampire, zombies that want to go shopping – the idea of a group of knights living as kind of travelling sideshow starts to sort of make sense; there’s a consistency, a kind of logic at work here.
The film starts out well enough, laying out its players and their lifestyle with pace, grace and wit. However it’s not long before something stalls, and it becomes apparent that this movie doesn’t really know where it’s going at all. The film’s utopian and faintly hippie-ish central conceit never really resolves; the storyline and the characters seem adrift.
What is it then? Is it an action film? Well, yeah, at times but it’s low speed motor-jousting is hardly an unalloyed thrill, despite the knowledge that it’s being done “for real”. Ok, so is it a character piece? Well, yeah, at times but it’s rarely convincing and manages to be slow, dull, over-crowded and unconvincing despite a particularly strong central performance from Ed Harris as the delusional and fatalistic king/ringleader Billy. The film never seems able to commit to being either a study of subcultural dynamics or an oddly intense exploration of one man’s deluded and intense desires.
While you’ve got to laud Romero’s ambition in this attempt to break out of the horror genre, you’ve equally got to acknowledge that he’s rarely playing to his strengths in this film. In his undead/disaster classics lurid inventiveness and Grand Guignol splatter distract from the occasional weak performance or clunky line of dialogue but here there’s only sporadic uninspiring action and sustained liberal hand wringing. Scenes which should be intriguing, enlightening and endearing are often cringe-inducing and stagey; it seems to me that campfire confessionals played this badly are unconvincing and distracting in a way that the most dunderheaded and low-budget disembowelling never is. For a filmmaker as cartoonishly visceral as Romero, Knightriders attempt to demonstrate subtle community interactions and intimate politics seems too delicate and ultimately too hard to grasp.
While hardly typical “message movies” the films in his Dead series are by turns dramatic, comedic and horrific, and engage in a sort of routinely tasteless EC Comics-influenced sledgehammer satire. Knightriders appears to share something of this spirit but the targets are diffuse and poorly articulated. The mere presence of the knight/bikers is shown to antagonise all sorts of authority figures – local police, abusive fathers – but conclusions are deferred or even apparently avoided. Most oddly for a filmmaker capable of eliciting sympathy for hordes of marauding corpses is the casual distrust of the general population on display here. They either disbelieve in Billy’s set-up, like Stephen King’s ill-advised and two dimensional cameo, or interfere and trivialise it like the interminable numbers of bikers who are eager to intrude at the end of each of the groups performances. Again Knightriders seems unable to decide what it wants, unsure if it’s a satirical critique or a positive endorsement of a sort of free-wheeling, autonomous culture.
I’m loathe to dismiss Knightriders - there are shards of insight and occasional flashes of greatness but its painfully languid pacing and inarticulate script leave me bemused and disappointed. Where as the flaws in Romero’s other films are set off against a sort of casual trashy genius here they just accumulate and distract, compromising the whole enterprise. Two hours in the movie begins to feel interminable as well as patchy, and not even a classic Romero shock or two in the final reel can do anything to save the experience.
FOXX: … Next in line for the night was Knightriders. The mention of this being a George A. Romero film triggers the senses and hope that the night could be rescued, oh how wrong can one person be. Jimm mentions that this movie is sort of the story of King Arthur on bikes with Ed Harris acting as the lead role which keeps me interested but then two hours in and we are starting to wonder how long this is going to go on for. As punishment, Gazz can’t leave it alone and checks the box, “For fuck sake” is what is followed by a quick glimpse, that’s right, 145 minutes! 2 hours and 25 minutes this thing is, and after two hours basically fucking nowt has happened.
Slowly the brain is melting into non-existence and wishing it had fucked off into space with the DVD player when it had the chance with Streets of Fire. I am just about to switch off and forget I ever lost almost three hours on this movie when the screen suddenly shows me the delight of someone falling off their bike. This is then followed up by a close up of a baby in a pushchair (I know what you are thinking, he likes gore but not to that extent >:) ) and I start to pay attention praying for this to actually happen knowing George likes his gore in the zombie fests. I see the bike fly over the pushchair and start to wish I hadn’t wasted the energy paying attention when all of a sudden the bike clocks some lass in the face at full pelt followed by a slight smirk from myself. After this I switch off again and wish I could reclaim those three hours of my life back.
CLASS OF 1984 (1982)
Dir: Mark L. Lester
Scr: Mark L. Lester
(Click here for the original trailer)
Plot: Andrew Norris arrives at a rundown high school to teach music. The only problem is is that there are a group of drug dealing thuggish students led by a piano genius Peter Stegman who are determined to continue doing business in the school, and teach a lesson to anybody who thinks about getting in their way…
As I said in Issue # 8 of OFF THE SHELF, the film has dated enormously and is very hard to take seriously as a result but, watching it today, it does amaze you [whether 'Jimm' agrees with me or not] with how much Mark Lester and company actually predicted re the state of schools (teacher breakdowns, student on teacher violence, metal detectors in the corridors etc.). The rape sequence still sits a little uncomfortably but overall it isn’t as raw and offensive as its original “Video Nasty” label indicates. In fact, it’s like a living breathing cartoon of sorts!
Class of 1984 is as camp as a row of tents. As predictive as it was, in my opinion, about the future state of schools, this is not a film to be taken seriously, believe me. The most fun of the evening though was seeing ‘Foxx’ suddenly perk up come this film’s finale. You know what it’s like when you open a tin of dog food and the dog’s head immediately arches up and his eyes go wide with the excitement of getting something to eat? That was ‘Foxx’. He’d moaned, he’d slouched, he’d had barely any fun but then when Class of 1984’s teacher turns on his tormenting pupils for the film’s gloriously OTT climax, ‘Foxx’ reacted as if he had dropped a pound coin but picked up a fifty quid note!
JIMM: I cared very little for Class of 1984. I found it trite and ludicrous and ill thought out. I’ve been trying to work out what to write about it for a month now and I’m stuck. What can I say? Sometimes you see something which you have so little connection with, that a coherent response seems impossible. Do i list what I perceive to be its few strengths? Do I try and enumerate its myriad failings? Are they even failings? What the fuck do I know anyway? I’m vexed.
I think my paralysis kind of reflects the movie’s own inability to decide whether it’s a grimly exploitative Death Wish style revenge fantasy or a prescient and lurid teenage gang expose. It’s both. It’s neither. Even if you are willing to accept the film’s hallucinogenic tabloidal premise then its stylistic and tonal missteps – from the costumes to the performances to the plot’s trite ironies - manage to completely undermine any drama or seriousness it aspires to. Take the presence of Alice Cooper performing the film’s theme I Am The Future on the soundtrack; Did people really still find Alice Cooper dangerous or intimidating in 1982? Is it a joke or a “joke”? I can only take it as something truly, but unintentionally, camp.
At the film’s heart is a dual between two overblown B-movie archetypes, apparently from two very different movies: Perry King’s slow-burning, provoked music teacher faces off against Timothy Van Patten’s out of control bully/drug dealer/rapist/nihilist Stegman. Stegman is a presented as simplistically and inexplicably evil. Attempts at subtlety include such bone-headed touches as making him an apparent musical virtuoso and a privileged, spoiled child. If he had a moustache he’d twiddle it at the end of very scene. This contrasts awkwardly with the grim, relatively convincing atrocities which he consistently engages in. No matter how horrendous the behaviour of the villainous gang is, it is impossible to take them seriously. Think of Alex’s droogs from A Clockwork Orange re-imagined by the producers of The Monkees and you’re on the way to imagining the weird non-menace these characters possess.
There are moments of low-rent brilliance buried amongst the turgid and nonsensical plotting. Roddy McDowell’s crazed Terry Corrigan teaching a science class at gunpoint comes to mind, as does the auto-assault by Stegman which bears comparison with the similar scene in Fight Club. For all my reservations, the final fifteen minutes offer a frenzy of mayhem which is compelling if uninspiring viewing. The film does have something, just not much of it.
In writing this review I’ve been surprised to see how well thought of Class of 1984 is, so I’m willing to concede that at least part of my active dislike for it may have been the responsibility of the previous two disappointments and a sort of viewer fatigue. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll end up changing my mind about it. But right now, with a deadline looming, Class of 1984 feels like one of the worst films I’ve ever seen.
FOXX: Finally the last movie of the night kicks in, Class of 1984. After a small debate as to whether we should watch it as I was at work in 5 hours time but, what the hell, I had almost burned my eyes out of their sockets due to the sheer oblivion of what I had witnessed previously in the night. I settle in for a long haul and wonder if this could be any good or if it would be just as bad as the others. So the film is basically a school of fuck-tards who basically take the piss, if you will, the “bullies” against the “swots”.
So lets consider that this film is meant to portray a school on the fringe of all out chaos, with gangs ruling the school and the teachers are basically there to fill the extra’s roles but I have seen more chaos in a post office queue on a Wednesday morning when the pensions are due, with handbags flying all over the shop and grannies getting war wounds from flying pens when the old dear at the front of the queue has had enough of counting £100 in pennies and goes all incredible hulk on the pen and rips it from its chain (Personally I would of preferred to have watched that for entertainment than Class of 1984).A young Michael J. Fox is present in this film and he hasn’t changed a bit, the highlight of the film is his friend necks a whole bag of smack to hide it from the teacher and goes off on one and climbs the flag pole to which he promptly falls from and smashed his skull on the ground, bit disappointed in this due to no blood or actually seeing the skull cave in from the impact but it sums up the night.Actually the end of the film was probably the highlight, (You see the night was that poor on the film selection that I almost forgot the last 20 minutes of this movie) 20 minutes of great ways to kill students and hats off to the teacher to be honest- A circular saw, setting fire to a student with an acetylene torch, crushing the lass under a car on the jacks and finally the “leader” (a young version of Gary Glitter to be honest in both dress and campness) gets his shit messed up, being kicked through a window and then being hung from the ropes above the stage. That’s it, I can’t think of anything else from the evening, it was that mind numbingly boring that none of the three films really register on the radar for myself, I could of had more fun stabbing myself in the gentleman’s area with a rusty pick axe in all honesty.
And that’s it! Between the three of us, do any of us express an opinion on the given films that you’d agree with? Are we all totally way off? What’s your thoughts? I’ll give you a few moments to gather them together and insert them into the talkbacks below. In the meantime, as a sort of “compensation payment” for having to endure what was clearly the worst night of his life, I give ‘Foxx’ - once again - the forum for “final thought”:
“Liberate tutame ex inferis”This is all that’s needed to be said about these three films.
Now, I’ll be honest with you, ‘Foxx’ tends to struggle to communicate intelligently in ENGLISH so there is not enough words for me able to convey my surprise that he is throwing barbed remarks out in a foreign tongue. All hail ‘Foxx’ eh? He just never fails to surprise!
Next you know he’ll be showing us his fighter pilots licence! Ha Ha. See you next time for a movie in which the title also fully describes its main character, a movie reunion for two of the “heavyweights” from Best of the Best AND a baby with a bit of an “attitude problem”!
Stick with us and see you next time!
Related Posts:
- THE SATURDAY NIGHT ‘3-WAY’ #1
- [Movie Review]: WE OWN THE NIGHT
- [BLU-RAY Review] PROM NIGHT
- [Movie Review] 30 DAYS OF NIGHT
- [Retro Review] NIGHT OF THE CREEPS
9 Responses to “THE SATURDAY NIGHT ‘3-WAY’ #2”
“Now, I’ll be honest with you, ‘Foxx’ tends to struggle to communicate intelligently in ENGLISH”
Now what are you trying to say here Gazz? I will tell you what then the next reviews you will have a straight laced critical review and I will forget the down to earth approach.
TBH looking at the next few three ways I think I may struggle to even write a review. I crave violent movies and gore for the sake of gore xD
That’s it I am gonna go in a strop lol I would start checking your garden Gazz (you know what I mean) and listen for the chainsaw noises to your door
It was a facetious attempt at “humour”. My deepest apologies for any offence - it was not a slight against your writing abilities, I assure you!
And you have just wasted my time sir - I have been out in the garden coz I was concerned about you being out there in the cold. I’ve wasted 20 minutes talking to a bloody gnome!
Damn you!
You have to give me time squire to fashion a crude cross to place in your garden LOL
LMAO!!!!!
Haven’t seen Streets of Fire and don’t care for Class of 1984. But Knightriders is pretty good, haven’t seen it in years though.
Yeah… we’ll have to disagree on Knightriders I’m afraid.
More beer next tome I think fellas. Sounds like all work and no play for three dull films.
Well, I still stand by my affection STREETS OF FIRE and CLASS OF 1984.
The NEXT one should be ace though! It was such a good fun night and I really hope that that translates over into the article!
‘Foxx’ was on ****ing fire that night and ‘Jimm’ has never been as acerbic! Great fun.
Roll on #4 which should be taking place at the end of October. It’s an event I’m tentatively calling:
THE SATURDAY NIGHT 3-WAY #4: WE BETTER BE WATCHING SOME FILMS THAT YOU BOUGHT ME OFF MY AMAZON WISHLIST FOR MY BIRTHDAY (21st By The Way) OR I’M GOING TO BE ROYALLY PISSED!
We might change it to something a little catchier though
To be perfectly honest Gazz you need to forget your wish list and allow me to open your eyes to the world of gore and let me bring the sickest crap you can imagine xD There isn’t anything in the whole list of three ways we have planned that will have me on the floor, crying with laughter :P
Trackbacks
What's Your Opinion?