Review CLVI - The Plague Dogs

Review 156
The Plague Dogs (1982)

Christmas came and went and we're heading toward the new year. It's already 2017, guys. That's crazy. 2016 was a stress-induced, depressing personal journey that I'd rather never relive, but some great things came out this year, so it wasn't a complete waste at least. All I can say is people will try to bring you down, but if you persist in your conquest, you'll make it. May you move forward in your endeavours.

With that said, with the passing of Richard Adams on December 24th, I couldn't not say a word. I didn't follow his work explicitly, but I loved his novel, Watership Down. I also reviewed the movie adaptation, so I figured that I'd review The Plague Dogs, based on his novel of the same name, and directed by Martin Rosen, the same director of Watership Down. With the familiar voice of John Hurt, Christopher Benjamin, and James Bolam. Now, I never read the original source material, so I'm reviewing the film purely on itself. Take that as you will.

Rowf (Christopher Benjamin) and Snitter (John Hurt) are two dogs living in a animal-testing facility, who can only dream of freedom. However, a chance at liberty brings the dogs the new high, until the media catches wind of the whole escape, claiming the dogs may be rabid and carrying the plague.

Guys, if you thought Watership Down was depressing, The Plague Dogs is worse. It was a hard film to watch, especially as a dog lover and animal enthusiast who had worked in an animal lab (almost contradictory, right?). Now, before I continue with this review, I want to be clear: I am not against animal testing one hundred percent. If ever I take a medication, I am fully aware that it was tested on an animal at some point, and if that medication could save my life, I wouldn't deny it or condone it for its animal testing. We live in a world dominated by hierarchy whether we like it or not - in the wild, it's kill or be killed. The same applies to the human race. So for practical purposes, like medication testing (which, honestly, is sometimes experimented on people to an extent), I do not disagree with animal testing.

Now that we have that out of the way - because this isn't a black and white issue in the least - I am against animal testing which serves no purpose. Regulations have been imputed since the making of this movie and Richard Adams' novel, but at the time, it's true - animal testing was kept more of a secret. Animals were tested for the sake of testing with no real valuable data obtained (like shocking a puppy for no other reason than to conclude that "it would hurt", for example). Even if valuable data is obtained, if an animal suffers longer than necessary, than again, I am against it. Now, The Plague Dogs takes on a more global message, but again, recall the stance of animal testing at the time. Watching Rowf's massive phobia of water and seeing Snitter's panic attacks just broke my heart. And honestly, the film doesn't mess around at all - just as in Watership Down, the violence is real. There's one scene in particular with a gun that just scarred me for life (you'll know which one it is) - yeah, I admit I'm a pansy. And just this dogs running away just breaks my heart... But I'm sorry, that's my emotional reaction. I watched this film maybe a year ago, and it still affects me. But I'm a big softy, so take it as you will. The Tod (James Bolam), the fox character, also gives you the feels as he tries to help these hopeless dogs.

The film itself, along with a less certain ending, The Plague Dogs really hits hard. But the animation has that low-budgetness of Watership Down. It's fine, and honestly, thinking back on the film, I remember the story nonetheless. Still, I could see myself reading the book to delve deeper into the story, which really was the highlight of this thing.

If you're an animal lover, The Plague Dogs will be hard to watch. It shows the harshness of the world and the cruel world animals can face, particularly before particular bills were put in place to help out our fellow companions. Really, I can only give you an animal lover perspective, so if you don't care for animals at all, what can I say? I don't know how much you'll enjoy the film. I think it's a worth, but prepare the tissue box - at least, I know I definitely needed it.

With that said, thank you Richard Adams for your charming-yet-hard-hitting stories of animals. From rabbits to dogs, you showed us imaginative escapes from a different view. Rest in peace.

Review CLV - Wall Street

Review 155
Wall Street (1987)

Hey guys, it's been a while. After nearly dying due to school, I'm on my winter break, scrambling for free time in between working and getting all those underlying chores completed. Anyway, let's get on with today's review on Oliver Stone's Wall Street, starring Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen, and Daryl Hannah. It was not exactly what I wanted to watch, but my boyfriend pointed out that it was a "classic" in a sense, so we should check it out. I can't say I could disagree with him, so we decided to check out Wall Street, despite Oliver Stone's shall we say inaccurate political views.

Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is a stockbroker, desperately trying to work under Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), a multi-billionaire playing on Wall Street with great success. After providing inside information about where his father (Martin Sheen) works, Gekko decides to help Bud Fox, who, in his eyes, is an expendable nobody ready to put himself on the line to make it big.

Wall Street has potential. While I accept capitalism as a means in society, philosophically, it falls. The film definitely addresses this, as well as showing that an honest man's work can bring greater joy than the corrupt billionaire with all the money in the world (sounds real commie, eh?). If your aspirations include becoming rich, there's nothing wrong with that, but I also believe that if you lose yourself in getting rich, especially in a let's-make-a-quick-buck kind of way, there's a problem. If, as Bud Fox's dad explains, you start judging a man by the size of his wallet, you're entering capitalism as a philosophy, and it will not provide true happiness, shall we say. Bud Fox's dad works hard for his money, Gekko does not. This is where we see a problem. So Wall Street has a nice little message.

But, and it's a big but: I can't say I liked the acting from our main protagonists, apart from Michael Douglas. Charlie Sheen seemed so straight and bland all the time, except when he visited his dad, whereby the emotional scene was nice, but super rushed (blaming editors and director for that one). Otherwise, I felt like there wasn't much going on whenever he opened his mouth, except that he would deliver lines to keep the plot moving forward. I think Oliver Stone said he was going for this style from him, but I didn't like it. I thought it was a poor choice - I like animated acting, not bored-out-of-their-minds acting. However, the animated acting from Bud Fox's friend there, played by John C. McGinley was so exaggerated... I don't know, honestly.

But by far the worst acting is from Daryl Hannah. She won a Razzie for her acting, and honestly, it is piss-poor. Not to mention her character doesn't seem like the type who would be going after rich men - she studied some shitty liberal shit, and she's not even hot, so why Gekko would have gone for her is beyond me. Every time she spoke, and anytime I saw her shitty choice in contemporary art crap, I was gagging. Why Oliver Stone would have picked her is beyond me - an absolutely lousy choice. I mean, she was fine in Blade Runner, but I guess her placement in this role was bad - or maybe Oliver Stone can't direct actors and actresses for shit.

Overall, Wall Street is a nice little film, criticising the self-made millionaires who made themselves through stocks, not through hard-work, and taking capitalism as a way of life. However, the acting falls short in a film. The humor thrown in from Bud Fox's boss was lame in my opinion as well, but whatever. Basically, the movie is a cute one-watcher which doesn't really stand up to the test of time. Check it out if you're interested, but if you're not, skip it - you aren't missing much.