Jamie Alexandre Hall's Blog, page 2

Off My Shelf: The Disaster Artist (2017)

I suppose this deserves some explanation.



Once upon a time, there was a movie called The Room. This was a movie made as something of a vanity project by a man named Tommy Wiseau. He wrote, directed and starred in the film. It's about a great guy (named Johnny) who lives in a room with a woman named Lisa. Lisa is a bit selfish and is basically using Johnny, doesn't love him, and -- in fact -- carries on an affair with his best friend, Mark. Johnny is a great guy, as previously mentioned, and everybody likes him, but the betrayal of Lisa tears him apart mentally, bringing it all to a "tragic" conclusion. In theory, and intention, this movie is a "great drama".


However, in execution, it is so hideously poorly executed that it has become a cult "bad movie" classic. The thing about The Room is that, like Troll 2, it's essentially a well-made, nice-looking movie... with a nonsensical script that feels like it was written by aliens, and exceptionally poor acting. At times, it feels like a fake movie... except, nobody could really fake a movie at that level. But, like I said, it's become a delightful and "respected" bad movie, enjoyed by all, so (on many levels) Tommy Wiseau is a huge success. (If you like "good-bad" movies, I highly recommend The Room.)



Several years later, the guy who played the "other man" in the movie, an actor named Greg Sestero, decided to write a book about his experiences. He called this book The Disaster Artist, writing all about the weird enigma that is auter Tommy Wiseau. Tommy is, if anything, far stranger in real life than he comes across in his movie (and he comes across as very strange in his movie). It's a wonderful book -- very well-written. At times sad, at times hilariously funny. (I highly recommend the book, The Disaster Artist).


THEN, in a final twist, real Hollywood actor James Franco loved the book so much that he decided to make it into a movie about the book about the movie, with himself playing Tommy Wiseau, his brother playing Greg Sestero, and all his Hollywood friends (like Seth Rogen, etc.) playing the other players in the story.

I thought this sounded like a horrible idea. Why? Because, for one thing, I'm just not crazy about James Franco. I've seen Franco in quite a few movies, and in my opinion, he is consistently and damagingly miscast. I would say that, what parts of the film Oz: The Great and Powerful weren't already destroyed by the horrible writing (which basically defamed the entire, beloved land of Oz), were destroyed by his hideous miscasting. I've been very angry about James Franco ever since I saw that movie, because I really wanted to like that film.

So when I heard that he was going to make a movie from a) a book I really like, about b) a film I really enjoy watching, I was downright disturbed. And when I saw the trailer, I didn't feel a whole lot better. The last thing I wanted to do was watch two hours of a bad Tommy Wiseau impression followed by Seth Rogen over-explaining the jokes in The Room, rendering them unfunny.


So, I had to be somewhat enticed into seeing this movie. Right before Christmas, we saw Star Wars: The Last Jedi -- and it was so criminally unsatisfying, we decided almost anything must be better than that -- and went to see The Disaster Artist.

As it turns out... my fears were wholly unfounded. In spite of the fact I'm not a fan of James Franco, I thought he did an excellent job as Tommy Wiseau. It was more than just an impression, because he wasn't just repeating lines from the movie (although he does plenty of that); he also has to act out scenes that were only in the book and bring them to life and make it seem as though it's really Tommy acting them out, and he succeeded. I cannot praise James Franco's performance enough. He was a delight to watch as Tommy Wiseau. I would go as far as to say it's his best performance.

I suppose, at times, I could argue that he doesn't quite achieve the dead-eyed quality that Tommy has in his movie... but that's okay. He still did a good job. And Seth Rogen doesn't explain all the jokes in the movie.

Issues
The movie has been compared to the movie Ed Wood, and I can understand why. It's a similar theme in both cases; acting-struck boy befriends old weirdo, they make movie(s) together, become friends, learn lessons, and finally create their "masterpiece" (which is a really, terrible film, but this in itself earns them fame). Ed Wood is an excellent movie, and one of favorites -- and I wholly agree with the people who compare this movie to that one, and somewhat unfavorably.

The movie isn't entirely flawless; the book is far better. Which is not to say that watching the movie was a bad experience; it simply left a few things to be desired. For a start... I didn't think that the actor playing Greg Sestero (performed by James Franco's brother) captured Greg Sestero the way that James caught Tommy (although, it must be said, Tommy is definitely a broader and easier to imitate "type").

For another thing... some of the bits of the book that they chose to leave out of the movie were pretty mystifying to me. They would include an entire scene from the book -- and then leave out the part of the scene that I thought was the funniest. For instance...

They included a scene where they were driving, but left out this weird bit of commentary from Tommy, which was by far the funniest part of it. Also,
...So, they included the pug dog scene from the movie, but not this hilarious behind-the-scenes moment. There were several things like this, where I thought they left out the best and funniest moment of the story, which left a few scenes a little bland and "not as funny as they could be."

They also left out some of the motivations and story behind things that Greg Sestero does in the story, which (honestly) makes Greg's character pretty bland, and kind of inexplicable at times. I don't always know why he does the things he does, or why he doesn't get more upset by things that Tommy does -- while, in the book, Greg's reactions to things always make perfect sense.

Ultimately...
That said... did these things ruin the movie for me? No! I quite enjoyed watching the film. It was no Ed Wood, and not a flawless adaptation of the book, but it wasn't a waste of my money (like a certain unnamed Star Wars film). It was a light, enjoyable little movie about the weird, backside of the classic Hollywood story. Now, whether or not I recommend it is very conditional; mainly, I don't recommend this movie if you haven't seen The Room. I don't think the movie would be unwatchable if you haven't seen The Room ... but I think there are nuances that you just wouldn't appreciate as much. (I have a friend who hasn't seen The Room or read the book, and still saw this, and thought it was great -- so I'm not saying watching it without reading the book or watching The Room is impossible. Just not wholly desirable in all cases). So, in the end, despite the film's flaws I still have to say...

RECOMMENDED

Off My Shelf: Star Wars - The Last Jedi (2017)

It's really hard to put my feelings about this movie into words... I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of rambling. But I'll try.



Plot: It's a few minutes after the last movie ended -- and the resistance is being chased by a big bad guy ship! They are chased until they run out of gas (and, yes, that is really the main plot of the movie) while the most important characters either a) do things that make no sense, b) do embarrassing things, and c) are not on screen. 
So -- first of all, you might do a refresher on what I thought about Star Wars: The Force Awakens . That's a lengthy two-parter that goes into great detail about what I thought were the main flaws of that film -- namely, misused characters and missed opportunities (story-wise). Not a terrible experience -- just kind of a shrug of the shoulders, and "maybe the next one will be better."
Well, this one has misused characters. And it has missed-opportunities. AND IT WAS PRETTY MUCH A TERRIBLE EXPERIENCE.

-A-NUMBER ONE PROBLEM: TERRIBLE COMEDY-

Pretty much the first thing you notice when you're watching this movie is that they are suddenly trying to fill it with really awkward, out-of place comedy. Seen Guardians of the Galaxy? Apparently, because Disney owns both properties, they think there should be consistent humor throughout. This is clearly a big error on their part. There is a truly cringe-worthy bit of "humor" when the movie opens, with Poe basically prank-calling the leader of the evil empire. The tone of this movie is off from beginning to end.
- MORE POINTLESS NEW CHARACTERS-

Rose
The brand new character that nobody asked for and nobody wants now that she got here!


A new character who is oh-so-important to the story. But is she? Rose is a security person aboard the resistance ship, befriends Finn, and goes off on a really stupid, poorly-thought out adventure that involves going to a casino planet and releasing all the racehorses that are abused there so that they can smash up the casino. (And finding a "master code breaker" who can do something-something on the bad guy ship.) The consensus among the reviewers seems to be that the "Rose/Finn" adventure felt really unnecessary to the story (many have said that it felt like a lame, stand-alone adventure from the cartoon show The Clone Wars), was not entertaining, and was enjoyed by no one.

Rose was given a very touching message at the end about how we're going to win this war not by hurting the ones we hate, but by saving the ones we love... which doesn't really make a lot of sense and actively risks other's peoples lives in the way she acted out this moral.

So, sorry Rose. But don't come back.

Benicio Del Toro
I forget what his character's name was, but it doesn't really matter.


He was essentially a cheap device to move the plot along from point A to point B (although, in this case, it just moves from point A to point A), and didn't have a character arc. He told them when they met up that he was a mercenary who just sides with whomever is winning -- and then they are surprised when he turns out to be a mercenary who sides with whomever is winning. He learns no lessons and experiences no personal growth -- and has no memorable dialogue.

Laura Dern
Her character Mondo Bobba (or whatever her name is; it really doesn't matter) also doesn't have much of an arc. Although she does have one of the ugliest dresses in the entire galaxy. "I am good strong woman character! I tell people what to do and I take no sass from da man!"

I honestly thought she was brought in to replace Carrie Fisher (after...you know) and most of the time it does feel like she's just subbing for Leia, who spends most of the movie out of commission. I really don't know why she was in this movie if it wasn't to sub for Carrie Fisher... Honestly, it would have been more interesting and meaningful if everything Laura Dern did in this film was done by either Leia, Admiral Akbar, Nien Nunb, or...

Lando Calrissian
This is the one good part of this movie; the part I really cared about. We discover, when Finn and Rose arrive on the casino planet, that Lando Calrissian has gone rogue and runs this casino for creeps and war profiteers. He is reluctantly pulled back into the struggle against the new bad guys -- and then bravely sacrifices himself for the good of his friends.


JUST KIDDING! HE'S NOT IN THIS MOVIE! (In spite of the fact there were about twenty places where he easily would have fit in -- including completely replacing Laura Dern's character. Clashes between ultra-cool Billy Dee and hothead Poe Dameron would have been much more interesting than the vague, boring, "Strong Woman Want to be in Charge vs. Hothead Man Want to be in Charge" discussions between Dern and Poe. For that matter, he could have replaced Benicio De Toro's character, too! They come across him in the prison on the casino planet, he promises them he can do the code-breaking -- he can't, of course, and he betrays them. BETRAYED BY LANDO?! SHOCK! HORROR! But not without precedent and at least I would have felt something -- something apart from vague annoyance and boredom, I mean.)

- Previously New Characters, Also Wasted -

FinnRemember how I previously mentioned that Finn was the best new character?



He has the most opportunity for inner turmoil and fish-out-of-water scenarios (he was stolen as a baby and raised to be more or less a cog in the bad-guy machine, never even had a name). However, in this movie (as in the last) he's a pretty sociable guy and pretty emotionally-well adjusted. HE OUGHT TO HAVE PROBLEMS AND COMPLEXES UP THE WAZOO, not to mention ought to be as socially awkward as all-get-out. Any opportunities for exploring his history and psyche problems are simply ignored in favor of the incredibly stupid and annoying "Finn and Rose go on an adventure!" plot. (And aside from that -- wouldn't it have been more interesting if Finn and his new best friend Poe Dameron went on an adventure? One would think. They could have some good comic banter, between cowardly man and not-cowardly-hothead man). But what do I know? We clearly need more Strong Woman Characters, because there are only about twenty of them in this movie...!

ReyRemember how I previously mentioned that it would be creative if, instead of being Obi-Wan's granddaughter or whatever they had in mind, they had made Rey just "a random person"? WELL, THEY DID. And I would be fine with that, if they hadn't done it like this (paraphrasing, but only slightly):
Kylo Ren: "I saw your parents [via The Force]. And you know what? They're nobodies and they're dead, so you, like, don't even belong in this story because only Skywalkers get to be lead characters in Star Wars."
The problem with the above (aside from what a hamfisted and out-of-place bit of dialogue it was, even in its un-paraphrased version) is that Rey was never before really concerned with who her parents were until all of a sudden in this movie -- she knew who her parents were; i.e. THEY WERE HER PARENTS. Rey was never concerned about whether she was secretly Obi-Wan Kenobi's granddaughter or Luke's daughter -- that was something FANS were concerned about. She was only concerned about, a) Where are my parents? b) Are they coming back? c) Why did they leave me in the first place? So, the way this revelation was phrased was basically a big middle-finger to the fans. "You know all those theories you had about who Rey might be? She's nobody. And so are you! Keep throwing your money at us, idiots!"

That's what I have a problem with. I also continue to have a problem with how ridiculously easy it is for Rey to use The Force.

Snoke
Remember how I said Snoke was stupid and there was no point for him to be in the movie?

 
Well, apparently somebody read my review, because they solved that problem in the dumbest way possible -- he's easily killed and that's the end of his story. THE END. Yes, granted he was dumb in the first place -- but they could at least have come up with a creative, legitimate reason for him to be around. Heck, even an un-creative explanation would have been better than what we got -- just go with the fan theory that he was Darth Plagueis. Nope! It's like the writers for the first movie left a bunch of things open-ended, hoping the writer for the second movie would work them in a satisfactory fashion -- but they didn't. NO, anything that was hard to resolve (Rey's parentage or the "Who is Snoke?" conundrum) was left completely left unresolved. "Screw you, Star Wars fans! We never liked you anyway!"
Leia
For the first time in a Star Wars movie, we get to see Princess Leia use The Force! After her space ship is damaged, her Force finally awakens so that she can save all the other people who had been blasted out of the ship, grandly sacrificing herself in the process.

JUST KIDDING! She uses her force powers to save herself and lets everyone else die. Not even joking about that. You know, Leia is just another example of a wasted possibility in these movies.

Chewbacca and the Droids
...Serve no purpose in this story.

Luke
Luke is kind of complicated. The first moment he's on the screen -- more of that awkward, out-of-place humor -- very painful. (And I'm not saying that Luke became like Yoda was in the original trilogy -- that would have been fun. No, just some comedy stuff that doesn't even make sense with the type of character that Luke is supposed to be). Then, sulking and grumping; I complain about that less than the comedy, as at least it was consistent with what they were going for -- but they failed to achieve anything satisfactory.


Then, more out-of-place humor. There was one good thing that came out of Luke Skywalker... that he said what the Jedi did in the prequels was nonsense. The rest of his appearance in the movie was unsatisfactory in a not-thoroughly-thought-out way.
 - THE STORY -
The story was really, really poorly written. I've talked already about the tone issues, and the overabundance of characters (both old, slightly new and new). The main story, as I said, is about the evil guys waiting for the good guys to run out of gas -- which is exactly as thrilling as it sounds. The rest of the story is a) unnecessary, forced conflict between characters (the type of thing that could be resolved by one person just explaining themselves with one sentence), b) Finn and Rose's stupid casino adventure, and c) Rey learning nothing from Luke and discovering everything she needs to know to advance the plot without his help. (And that plot, which was the most interesting part of the film, was the smallest part of the film). It's like they took many of the complaints against The Force Awakens and then tried to pick the single most unsatisfactory way to resolve all of those complaints -- ways that would just upset fans and confuse and irritate your casual movie goer.

- THE ENDING (**Spoilers!!**) -
There were three pieces, in a row, of the Luke Skywalker resolution to this movie that made no sense -- in a "this seems like a plot-hole created by a re-write, re-film" type situation. I'm not going to talk about those. I'm going to talk about the very end of the film, where a bunch of abused stable boys on the casino planet are talking about Luke Skywalker and playing -- and then one of them uses the force to move a broom.

 
This ending seemed horrendously out of place. Some friends said it seemed like a "Hallmark" ending. My own statement, immediately after seeing the movie, was that it felt more like the ending of the last ever Star Wars movie -- the sort of thing that just feels like the authors are saying, "The main story is over, folks, but the universe of Star Wars lives on!" Why include a moment like that? IT MAKES NO SENSE. Unless (and several people posited this) they are setting up a resolution to the third movie where everyone in the universe can now use The Force, and they use it to take down the bad guys. The thing that confuses me about this is how anyone on earth would think that was a satisfactory ending to Star Wars. Everybody being able to use The Force would make the use of said Force cheap and uninteresting. If this is what they are building up to -- I sincerely hope they abandon that idea.


- ULTIMATELY -

Now, there were some people who liked this movie. The people who I've talked to who liked this movie seem to all be saying the same thing; "I liked it because it surprised me!" "It really subverted my expectations!" ... I don't get this. Just because the movie did things you didn't expect isn't a reason to like it. For instance; there is one point when Luke Skywalker walks up to a seated creature with big, disgusting boobs and squeezes them to squirt out some green milk into a bowl which he immediately and revoltingly drinks. (I am not kidding. This actually happens in the film). I NEVER EXPECTED LUKE SKYWALKER TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. This does not make it a good thing. 
Another example: if I were to step out of my bedroom and immediately get smacked in the head with a hammer by an intruder, I would not then exclaim, "Wow! I really enjoyed getting hit in the head with a hammer! I didn't expect it at all -- really subverted my expectations of how the day was going to go!" JUST BEING A SURPRISE DOESN'T MAKE SOMETHING GOOD. I was surprised the movie was an uneven mess that wasted my time -- and that is not a good surprise. The faults of The Force Awakens were supposed to be redeemed by this movie -- they were not. So, not only did this movie fail, it also took down the movie before it by several notches.  NOT RECOMMENDED

On My Shelf: Home Alone (1990)

Home Alone is one of our generation's much-beloved Christmas movies... and I'm not entirely sure why.


Plot: Kevin McCalister is the horrible, precocious child of a horrible, horrible gigantic family that has no likeable members. Due to a series of mix-ups, Kevin accidentally gets left "home alone" when the entire gigantic extended family leaves for a Paris Christmas adventure. While Kevin's Mom struggles to get home to save him despite holiday traffic problems, Kevin enjoys being on his own -- until a pair of burglars try to bust into the family home. At that point, it's up to Kevin to unleash his child genius/murderous rage on them all in order to save Christmas.

The Main Thing Wrong With This Movie

What I give to this movie is that it looks nice, it has pleasant music, and some neat cinematography (it is a John Hughes movie, after all). And who wouldn't want to spend Christmas in that beautiful, snow-covered house, on that beautiful, glistening, snow-covered street?

Aside from Kevin's idiot family, apparently.But the major problem with this movie is that I don't like any of the people in it. Oh, I don't mean the actors -- I have nothing against them personally. But the characters are horrible, horrible people, up to and including our child main character, Kevin McCalister. Yes, his siblings/cousins treat him terribly -- but he is a monster in return, so you don't really feel sorry for him when they're mean to him and when he gets left behind.

John Hughes must have thought this kid sreaming
was hilarious.This is probably the fundamental flaw with the movie. If the main character, Kevin, was just a bit more likable -- if you spent a bit more time going, "I feel sorry for that kid," or, "What a sweet kid," rather than, "I wonder if there's some way I can bend time and space in order to spank this kid?" you would be genuinely concerned when the burglars show up. The part that's up for debate is whether that's the fault of the script, or the actor (aka Macaulay Culkin). I mean, when you start rooting for the villains who want to burglarize a home and murder a child -- clearly, there is a problem with the film.

And honestly, even though Culkin was admittedly riding his looks for the majority of his childhood acting career, I feel like most of the problem here is with the script. If the character Kevin had spent a little more time saying or doing likeable things and less time saying and doing precocious brat things, he would have been a better character -- and that has nothing to do with the skill of the actor. (Note: They actually made an attempt to rectify these things in Home Alone 2, which lends further credence to the notion that it's a script problem, not a "kid actor" problem. Not that Home Alone 2 doesn't have its own issues, but that's a whole other discussion.)

It's Just Not Funny Enough

Okay, I'll give it to you -- there are funny moments in this movie.
Actually, this moment alone is the single funniest
part of the movie, hands down. No competition.... But there aren't enough funny moments in this movie. Most of the really funny moments are crammed into the slapstick kid vs. burglars fights at the end -- and the rest of it is cringing at Kevin's family being awful and Kevin being awful.


Minor Ending Issues (**SPOILERS**)

The heart of the movie, of course, is about the bond between Kevin and his Mom; Kevin fighting the burglars, although that's the thing that everybody watches the movie to see (because it's the funniest part), is really ancillary to that.

So, yes, Kevin defeats the burglars and Mom gets home and they share a heartwarming moment -- and, although Mom apologizes for accidentally abandoning Kevin, Kevin does not once apologize for being a little butthead and causing himself to be left behind (despite the fact that Kevin's family's Christmas is still essentially ruined because of Kevin. This is also rectified in Home Alone 2, leading me to believe that I'm not the only one who thought that fact subtracted a bit from the film).
(**End of SPOILERS**)

Ultimately
Most of the things I like about this movie are the way it looks and the way it sounds. The characters are extremely unlikable, and it's just not funny enough. I can understand having a sentimental attachment to the film (especially if it came out during a formative period of your childhood)... but other than that, it's more of a curiosity than anything else -- a curiosity that it was so terribly popular despite the issues I mention above.

Disagree? Please tell me why! I'm honestly perplexed as to why it's so popular.

MOSTLY NO

On My Shelf: White Christmas (1954)... I'm Going to Ramble About This One.

Christmas brings the annual opportunity for Mr. Hall to tell me that White Christmas isn't as good as Holiday Inn.



Not that either film is without its flaws, but I kind of agree. Holiday Inn holds together better as a movie. And I do like Holiday Inn. I think it's a good movie and I look forward to watching it each year. But the fact of the matter is, I also like White Christmas. I know it has problems, a very tenuous reason for being called White Christmas and in some spots kind of doesn't work.

Unrelated picture of the "Choreography" number.
IMDb: A successful song-and-dance team become romantically involved with a sister act and team up to save the failing Vermont inn of their former commanding general.

It's a nice movie! With a nice overall plot, fun song-and-dance numbers, talented performers, and it was filmed in stunning VistaVision!


I don't know what VistaVision is, but there are pretty
colors in this movie! Lots of 'em!But as I mentioned, there are a few parts that kind of don't work. Not in a hugely upsetting, "I want to stop watching this movie!" kind of way, but still -- just a trifle jarring. And I think it's mainly due to some of the back-stage issues the film faced.

It was originally conceived as a sequel of sorts to Holiday Inn and would have starred Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire...


...but then Fred Astaire decided, for whatever reason, he didn't want to do the movie. (There were rumors that he was tired of doing movies where he loses the girl to Bing, but I think that's highly unlikely -- after all, in both Holiday Inn and White Christmas, there are two main girls. No, I think it's far more likely, what with having retired once already at this point, that he was just not enthused about working. Not to mention that his wife passed away around this time. Don't be too sad for Fred, though; at age 81 he married again -- to a 36-year old lady jockey.)

Then, Bing Crosby's first wife also passed away and the project was shelved... for a couple years, and then Bing decided he was ready to do the film. Fred was still out, and I want to say I read that they initially considered replacing him with Donald O'Connor (a sound dancer, sure, but he was like twenty-something years old, which would have made Bing's rapidly advancing years even more obvious and weird). But then, I think Donald O'Connor got sick...and they finally wound up with Danny Kaye.

This might be why this is a kind of atypical role for Danny Kaye. The majority of Danny Kaye's films are about Danny Kaye being mistaken for someone else or being forced to impersonate another person (see: The Inspector General, The Court Jester, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, On the Double, etc. etc. etc.). That was his shtick. He does lots of different voices and accents and mugs and sings funny. Oh, in this movie he still has the opportunity to sing funny and mug in this movie, but I don't think, at any point, he's forced to impersonate someone else.

No, the most confusing parts of this movie are the parts that have this guy:



...A guy who vaguely visually suggests Danny Kaye, and performs a number of dance routines with the gal in this picture (Vera Ellen, i.e. Danny's leading lady)... and has no actual character in the film. As a first time viewer of this film, I have a feeling I would be saying.... "Who is this guy? Why is he dancing the lead in all of these musical numbers instead of one of our two lead males?"
And it's a good question, especially since Danny Kaye proves in an earlier dance number ("The Best Things Happen While You're Dancing") that he's not incapable of dancing -- even complicated dancing. My guess is that there was just a lot more dancing in this movie than Danny wanted to commit to (I mean, if one has to be practicing like ten dance routines, when can one find the time to golf? Right, Bill Murray?) Dance numbers are for people like Fred Astaire, who enjoy devoting all that time to rehearsing.
"I hate movies!" -- Bill MurrayIn a nutshell, then the majority of the parts of this film that don't work are due to the fact that it was just plain written for someone else. There are even references in the dialogue to songs that wound up being cut out of the final version. But, like I said, the overall story about them helping their old commanding officer from the Army is really nice, and it is a visually beautiful film with excellent musical numbers (except for the "Choreography!" number. Not a fan of that one! Competently performed, but it's just not a very fun number. It kind of felt like they just put that one in because they needed X number of singing/dancing scenes, and somebody bugged Irving Berlin until he pulled one out of his scratch pile. "Okay, okay... I've got this other song, this 'Choreography' thing -- we could put that in. But it doesn't really have anything to do with Christmas...." "It doesn't matter! Paramount said we needed seven musical numbers, and we've only got five! We'll use it, and what else have you got?" "Well, we're already re-using White Christmas from Holiday Inn... How about re-using 'Abraham'?" "PERFECT!")


In the end... do this movie's flaws outweigh its virtues? Not in the least! I think this is a fun, charming, emotionally-rewarding movie with lots of fun singing and dancing. If you like Christmas, and human beings, I have no idea why you wouldn't like this film.
Even if Holiday Inn is slightly better put-together.
**Note: This year, I watched the 50th anniversary "Diamond" edition Blu Ray -- and I have to say, the colors are corrected magnificently and there isn't a "bleeding" effect on the blue colors that I noticed in the old, uncorrected DVD version. So, if you can pick up the Diamond edition, do so!**
RECOMMENDED.

On My Shelf: Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987)

The John Hughes movie, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" just had its 30th Anniversary -- which means I must have been somewhere around 8 years old when I first saw this movie. Although I could take it or leave it as a kid, now it might be one of my favorite films.


Plot: Neil Paige (Steve Martin), a stick-in-the-mud marketing executive, is flying from a New York meeting to get home for Thanksgiving in Chicago -- or so he thinks. From the point he fails to get a taxi in New York, his chances of getting home in time for Thanksgiving get exponentially worse -- partly due to bad weather and equipment failures, and partly due to his brand-new travelling companion, Del Griffith (John Candy) -- an extremely friendly, kind-hearted and horribly obnoxious man who attaches himself to Neil in the New York airport and seemingly can't be shaken...

This is probably going to be a short review -- because I don't have to point out any flaws in this movie. But here are some of the best things about this movie:

5. It Successfully Balances Pathos and Comedy

This movie has some serious, sad moments. And it also has moments like this, of full-on, mugging-to-the camera to over-the-top dramatic music:


...And it somehow correctly balances those moments, so that you're not like, "Well, that felt out of place!" It excellently handles the issue of tone, which is something that a lot of modern movies struggle with -- they don't know when to put the funny stuff and when to put the sad stuff, and wind up putting them so close together that it's jarring and unpleasant (I'm thinking, in particular, of the recent movie The Lone Ranger, which jumped from a scene showing an entire slaughtered Indian village to a shot of a horse wearing a hat, sitting in a tree, and somebody making a Hank-Hill-style "That horse ain't right"-type comment. Perfectly dreadful.) In this movie, the moments of goofy comedy and heart-wrenching sadness are correctly spaced out. You don't jump straight from "Steve Martin discovers he's drying his face on John Candy's used undies!" to "I'm broken-hearted because I've lost a friend" -- there are good breaks in between the two that give you time to adjust to what's going on.


4. It Captures the Feeling of Travelling, of the Season and the Place

I think one of the things I personally enjoy about this movie now, as an adult, is that a) it really captures the feeling of this time of year, and of travelling, and b) I feel like I know the locations in this movie, because I do; every part of it (with the exception of New York, which is the one location in the film I've never actually visited). Not only that, the locations look the way they did when I was a child, which makes it all the more magical.

Watching this movie is like visiting the period that I grew up in -- all the primitive, technology-free ruralness of growing up in the midwestern United States in the late 1980's -- and, in it, the bitterly cold, gray winters that seem to stretch on forever. (Now that I've written that, it doesn't sound very appealing -- but believe me, I love cold, gray winters. It feels just like home.)

3. It's the Best Thanksgiving Movie

...Although that's not a whole lot of a credit to it, because, seriously, what competition does it have for that title? I can think of just one other movie that features a "Thanksgiving" theme as strongly -- and that would be Thankskilling. (Don't watch that movie. No. Seriously. DON'T WATCH IT. It is not "good-bad" -- it is vile. Nothing fails harder than a failed comedy -- except maybe a comedy that self-consciously attempts to be kitschy and bad, and fails at that as well.)

Here's a picture of wrestler Bret Hart putting the "sharpshooter"
finishing move on Jerry "The King" Lawler (because I can't stand for
you to look at an image from the movie Thankskilling. I'm even
sad that I brought it up and somebody might, therefore, watch
it as a consequence. Look, just forget I even mentioned it. See the
expression on The King's face? That's how that movie makes decent
people, of normal intelligence, feel.) 2. Steve Martin

Typically, if you told me you were going to cast wild-and-crazy Steve Martin as the straight man in your comedy movie, I would make one of those faces.
Okay, maybe not quite this face -- a little more perplexed and a bit less sinister.
(Seriously, Martin Short - what the heck was going on here?
Somebody tell you "dancing with knees-protruding" is not allowed?)But Steve Martin is astonishingly good as a straight man in this movie. Maybe it's because he's not a straight man in its purest sense -- he has plenty of funny stuff to do on his own, once his character gets pushed to his breaking point. But making him a "stiff, stick-in-the-mud" type character makes the moments when he goes crazy all the more hilarious; it hones, and gives structure and quality to the moments when he's out of control. Also, Steve Martin does a lot of good straight-up acting in this movie -- moments where his facial expression has to explain things about the situation and the characters that aren't outright being told to you.


Some people would debate the point with me, but I'm going to say that this is one of his best movie performances.

1. John Candy

If John Candy had a fault, it's that when he wasn't into a role, or wasn't excited about a project, you could really tell. He just couldn't hide it when he was not enjoying his job. His performance is flat and lifeless, and there's no smile in his eyes. He looks bored and unhappy.
TOTALLY UNRELATED picture of John Candy
 in the Dan Aykroyd career-killer, Nothing But Trouble.In this movie, on the other hand, features a glowing, delightful, charming John Candy -- who is loveable and fun even when his character is being his most goofy and obnoxious.


He even handles the moments of pathos well.


This is the role John Candy was born to play; it's the perfect essence of all his other best performances. In fact, I'd argue that Del Griffith is John Candy's single best movie performance. Yes, better than Uncle Buck. Uncle Buck, fun a character as he was, was a two-dimensional cut-out compared to Del Griffith.

Ultimately...

There's just one other thing I'd like to comment on -- which is HOW HEINOUSLY OFFENSIVE I FIND THE COVER TO THE NEW RELEASE OF THIS MOVIE:

THIS IS NOT A CHRISTMAS MOVIE. There are no candy-cane signposts in this movie, nor Christmas presents falling out of suitcases, nor Rankin-Bass snowflake landscapes. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY SOME MISGUIDED PHOTOSHOP ARTIST WOULD TRY TO MAKE THIS LOOK LIKE A CHRISTMAS MOVIE. THERE ARE SO FEW THANKSGIVING MOVIES, WHY WOULD YOU TRY AND ROB US OF THE ONLY ONE WORTH WATCHING?! Somebody clearly went, "Hmm, Christmas movies always sell good," and that was the extent of the thought that went into it. This cover is an offense to human intelligence (not unlike the movie Thankskilling.)

But, I digress.

So, anyway, in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, we've got good writing, good setting, good directing, great acting -- and it all adds up to great fun. Obviously, this movie is recommended, bigtime. It's a good comedy, and a good straight-up movie. If you haven't seen it, I seriously recommend that you watch it!

TOP-10! RECOMMENDED!

Off My Shelf: Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

As you would probably expect -- knowing (if you know this) that I'm a big fan of Agatha Christie -- I have a few problems with this movie.


Plot: World-famous detective Hercule Poirot is on a train headings towards vacation -- when a murder happens. There are twelve other people on the train -- and therefore, twelve suspects. Whodunnit?

Like I said, I'm an Agatha Christie fan. I decided, a few years back, that I would make it one of my goals in life to read all her books -- and she's one of those very prolific authors who turned out a couple books a year and lived for a long time -- so this was an undertaking. I haven't made it quite through the whole lot of them yet, but I'm close -- so, I can confidently state that when I read Murder on the Orient Express, I could understand why it was considered "one of the good ones". It had a very interesting plot, and I was surprised at the revelation of the murderer (don't worry, I won't spoil it!)

So, admittedly, I went into this movie knowing exactly what "the surprise ending" was. And I'm not sure if that threw off my judgement or not.... but I don't think it did.

Surprise! No lips!The Things I Liked
To my absolute shock -- the thing I might have enjoyed most was Johnny Depp's performance. I say this with shock because this was one of the things I went in expecting to enjoy least. I admit, I have grown to have a somewhat bad opinion of Johnny Depp's acting skills in the past few years. I tend to not find him funny in comedic roles, not find him heroic in heroic roles, and not find him convincing in serious roles. I didn't like him in The Lone Ranger, or Dark Shadows, or Pirates of the Caribbean. Just about the only Johnny Depp films where I didn't mind his performance were Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood -- and they were both characters that were a little off, to say the least. But in this role (small as it was) he was great, and perfectly convincing! Perhaps, the issue isn't so much that Johnny Depp is a bad actor -- just that he's a niche actor who has been consistently cast outside his niche? (His niche, apparently, being sleazy, 1930's thugs). I found him, in this role, to be both believable, funny and interesting.


The other thing I liked is that Branagh's Poirot had a ridiculously large mustache. Excellent as the David Suchet version of Poirot is -- the books describe him specifically as having an "enormous" mustache, and Suchet's nice little waxed 'stache doesn't really fit that description.

The Things I Liked the Least

Cinematography
Oddly enough, one of the big things I didn't like about this movie was one of the things I thought I would enjoy the most -- the cinematography. There were a lot of genuinely awkward, hard-to-look-at shots. Also shots that break basic rules of filmmaking -- i.e. when you first introduce a character, you should be able to see them. The most egregious example of this is when Michelle Pfeiffer's character was introduced (a pretty significant character)... and she and Poirot are walking behind things that obscure us being able to see them. Some people might cast that as a "bold directorial choice" -- but I call it crappy cinematography. The revelation of the dead body, too, was bungled twice -- and that's another significant thing that I'm not sure why it was messed with. It made me really question a) the editor's skill, and b) the director's skill. Perhaps Kenneth Branagh was trying to "visually" create "mysteries" (or visually imply mystery, somehow) by not letting us see things -- so that our brains are going, "What's going on behind that door frame that I can't see? What a mystery!" If that's the case, I suppose it was creative -- but it was really annoying and ultimately didn't work.



Unnecessary Diversity
I understand in this day and age, it must be very hard for a filmmaker to get a film greenlit that doesn't have "diverse casting" available. In order to counter that, the filmmakers of this film inserted some (relatively time-period inappropriate) diversity into the film -- and then, to counter the fact that the diversity they inserted was not wholly time-period appropriate, they made another character a goofy, cartoonish racist to comment on not wanting to be seated next to them folks, as sort of a nod to what they'd done. "See? We know this wouldn't have worked out well in those days, so we're commenting on it! That means we're good storytellers!"


So, not only did they create a problem, they very ham-fistedly played it out in the story, to no particular end. The story they created didn't go anywhere. Personally, I have no problem with diversity (if I did, I'd have to have problems with my own genetic makeup) -- but I'm also a big advocate of both "good storytelling" and "author's intentions" with regards to adaptations. So, if Agatha Christie wrote the story about a group of white people, and it makes sense for the time period and it muddles the story for to not just be white people, just let it be a group of white people. No one is going to be transformed into a racist by watching a movie that only has white stars. Agatha Christie was a pretty open-minded gal for her time and extensively well-travelled, so cut her some slack, folks, and tell her stories as they were intended to be told.

Poirot
I essentially enjoyed Kenneth Branagh (and, as stated, enjoyed his mustache), but thought the decision to include Poirot frequently moping over the picture of some long-lost love made him into a bit of a sad-sack. I didn't like the fact that the very first thing the movie does is include a bunch of big, exciting scenes that establish how smart and cool Poirot is -- because that is the antithesis of one of Agatha Christie's central themes about Poirot. In the books, people constantly underestimate Poirot because he's a short, funny-looking little old man, with a big silly mustache and an inflated opinion of himself. A character in the book even remarks upon this:

"The little man removed his hat. What an egg-shaped head he had! In spite of her preoccupations Mary Debenham smiled. A ridiculous-looking little man. The sort of little man one could never take seriously." - P.5

Does that description fit this man?

"The little man removed his hat. What a magnificent head of hair he had! In spite of her preoccupations, Mary Debenham smiled. This man was a freakin' badass! She took him very seriously!"Also, the ending (which I won't spoil for you) adds some unnecessary drama for Poirot and then  basically makes it seem like Poirot was abandoning one of the central characteristics of his character. Why, when you are clearly, clunkily laying down groundwork for a sequel ("They say there's been a death... on the Nile!") would you make Poirot abandon one of his central personal characteristics?

The Adaptation
The adaptation of this story... wasn't great. I felt like they spent too much time on little bits and twits that they'd added into the story (Poirot being obsessed with the size of eggs he is served? Poirot moping over a picture of his long-lost love? Not to mention jarring, absolute bottom-of-the-barrel comedy; i.e. Poirot steps in poop.) and never really built up a good sense of "mystery". There are twelve suspects -- but I never got a real sense of every single person being seriously considered as a suspect. Freakin'  Clue  does a better job of creating a mysterious atmosphere, and I HATE THAT MOVIE. There simply wasn't a heightened sense of suspicion, making you, the audience, suspect everyone and wonder who would be the killer could be. I wondered if I felt that way because I was familiar with the story and already knew who did it -- but Mr. Hall went to the movies with me, and was not familiar with the resolution of the story, and didn't feel that way either. I felt they left out too much of the mystery and too much of the detection in favor of... what? A couple unnecessary chase scenes? The racism sub-plot? Poirot's brand-new obsession with eating two identical eggs?
I have to say, I've never had a problem finding identical eggs. SPEAKING OF EGGS.... this adaptation pretty much "reads" like somebody just watched previous adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express and didn't bother to read any of the multiple other books of Poirot's adventures to become familiar with the character. Why, when Poirot is a notoriously bad sailor, do they have a long scene of him happily strolling around on the deck of a ship? Why, when Poirot is well-known to always start the day with a cocoa, is he depicted as being obsessed with eating identical eggs? Bad Kenneth Branagh. I would have expected better research from you.

Ultimately...
In the end... although I was really looking forward to this movie, because I like both Agatha Christie murder mysteries and snow, I found the experience muddled and lack-lustre. Oh, I've seen worse movies. But I've also seen movies that did a better job of doing their research, of adapting a story, and of creating a sense of mystery and intrigue. Ultimately, that's what was really missing from this movie.

If it came down to you having to watch either this movie or Clue, please watch this movie. And if you're a Kenneth Branagh fan, you'll probably enjoy this. It wasn't a terrible couple hours in the movie theater. It was just kind of weak.

Very Weakly Recommended

Off My Shelf: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

In case you were wondering -- yes, we did go to see Thor: Ragnarok. I mean, we saw the other two Thor movies, so we were kind of obligated to see this one, right?


Unlike the previous two movies, this film got a number of things right. Sadly, though, it got wrong the main thing that bothered me about the other two Thor movies.

Plot: Thor's evil sister shows up and kicks him out of town and everything goes wrong! He winds up on Jeff Goldblum's garbage planet and is forced to fight the Hulk for about thirty seconds! Then it gets a little dull, and "comedy" happens and then things happen that are important but don't really have any effect on anyone. AND DON'T FORGET IT CONNECTS TO THE REST OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE! MARVEL MARVEL MARVEL!

Things It Got Right

*I liked that this minor villain ("Skurge", as played by Karl Urban) had an actual character arc. And not only did he have a character arc -- he had an arc that was shown to us, rather than told to us. This is an improvement on the story-telling in many films I have seen in the past fifteen years or so.


*I liked the basic look of this movie. It was colorful and interesting to look at.

*I enjoyed seeing Jeff Goldblum! He brightens any day!

*I really enjoyed the music in this movie. It was fun, it was extremely 1980's, it was entertaining -- and it was the first time that I've noticed the original score in one of these Marvel movies. Normally, they are generic modern action-movie drek that you couldn't recall afterwards if your life depended on it. But in this case, it turns out the soundtrack was by Mark Mothersbaugh of "Devo" -- who, clearly, has some experience with 80's music. While I was watching the movie, I frequently thought to myself, "What fun music!... I wish the movie I was watching was that fun!"

Things it Got Wrong

EVERYTHING ELSE.


Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit. It wasn't a terrible movie-going experience (unlike Thor 2, which seemed to be composed entirely of annoying-voiced women and derp-jokes). No, Thor: Ragnarok at least shed the majority of annoying characters from the first couple films. So, I can confidently say, character wasn't the problem with this movie... in all except three cases.

And of those cases the main one is Thor -- which has been a problem throughout all three movies. So let's discuss Thor, shall we?


The problem with Thor was sown in the first movie; too serious, too low-key, too boring. Not enough smashing things with hammers. I don't remember much that happened in the second movie, but I don't recall any improvements in these areas -- I mostly remember being really irritated and wanting the movie to be over. In the third movie -- too jokey, and the wrong kind of action!

And if you're saying, "They gave you the opposite of your problems with the first movie, and you still have problems with it? NOTHING WILL PLEASE YOU!"

Nay, not so. Let's discuss the 1988 made-for-TV Incredible Hulk special, The Incredible Hulk Returns. (Which was mostly a pilot for a potential Thor TV series, so was very heavy on Thor, and very light on Hulk).

Problems with that movie aside (it's a good bad movie; check it out!) Thor was much more interesting in it than he ever was in the solo Marvel movies because he actually has a character; he's an overly-dramatic, fish-out-of-water, self-centered character who enjoys fighting.

Granted, there's only so long you can play with the "fish out of water" scenario; even Austin Powers had essentially spent that nickel by his third movie. But Thor should always be a bit short-sighted due to excessively high self-esteem; thinks about things in a very surface manner (i.e. his strategy in any fight should be, "We attack them head-on!"); is a perpetual ox in a china shop (the type of person who would get excited and accidentally punch a hole in your ceiling -- and not even notice that he's done so); behaves with excessive gravitas due to the fact that he essentially lacks a sense of humor; and ultimately be aggressively male in that he actively enjoys fighting.


And what do we get in this movie? He takes nothing seriously, he talks non-stop, and nothing really affects him (i.e. nothing is dramatic or a big deal to Thor -- not even his beloved hammer being destroyed, which ought to have been majorly traumatic, a real "Woe is me!" moment for him.) In the first ten minutes, Thor is quipping like there's no tomorrow, goofing around and not taking serious situations seriously. And they're not even good quips. Oh no -- it's a specific type of quipping that absolutely runs me up the wall -- the extremely over-used, Will-Ferrell-style, "I'm talking a mile a minute and saying everything that comes into my head even when it's not appropriate to do so!"-comedy. UGH. For a man-child-like character like Star Lord -- fine! For an egotistical snot like Tony Stark -- fine! For Buddy the Elf or Ron Burgundy -- FINE!

But NOT THOR.


Because he's the type of person who takes himself and life in general too seriously to laugh about it. Humor from Thor should be "accidental" on the part of his character and result from being excessively dramatic -- and from punching holes in the ceiling and not noticing.

And I was rather disappointed by what promised to be the best part of the movie -- the Hulk vs. Thor gladiator battle. The trailer made it look like Thor was FINALLY excited to do some fighting -- but  no, when we get there, he's more or less just excited to see the Hulk and really doesn't want to fight with him. That's... unsatisfactory.


The Lesser Problems
As I mentioned, there were a few general story issues.

The General Story Issues
Although the basic elements of the story were there -- it got kind of boring in the middle, and I was never really worried that things weren't going to work out for our heroes because they were so extremely unconcerned about their situation.

Cate Blanchett
Was fine as our evil villainess. Her costume was surprisingly faithful to what her character's costume is supposed to look like (which is always surprising, because Hollywood is secretly ashamed of comic book movies and hate for characters to look the way they do in comic books) but there wasn't enough of her.


And the appearances she did make were pretty one-note, were not super impressive or menacing, and she, too, spent way too much time quipping. Which is, of course, the fault of the script -- not the actress.

Jeff Goldblum Planet
I actually really enjoyed Jeff Goldblum (aka super extreme-Jeff-Goldblum-Liberace) in this movie as the evil dictator of the junk planet. He was entertaining.


The problem is that our our heroes arrive on a garbagey planet with an evil dictator... and WE NEVER SEE THE OPPRESSED MASSES AND WHAT MAKES HIM SO EVIL -- outside of being a bit arbitrary in the operation of his penal system. They mention he has "slaves" (which we never see). They imply that this is a crazy, upside down world where physics don't quite work the way they normally do (which we never see). They mention a revolution happening (which we never see). So, it's yet another case of being told things rather than shown things, which is a big no-no storytelling-wise. In order for one to care about anything that happened on the junk planet, the entire situation needed to be explained visually. Did I see enough of these problems to actually believe it and care whether or not the oppressed masses achieved freedom? No! Seemed like most everybody was having a good time, and even the imprisoned gladiators couldn't stop quipping. 

The Hip-Crotch Conundrum
Okay, this isn't really a story issue, but... although I guess it shouldn't... it always annoys me to see this part of Thor in movies:


I don't know why they feel the need to show this part of his body. OKAY, I mean, I DO know why they show that part of his body, but is it really necessary? Does any man really comfortably walk around with his pants so low you can see his hip/crotch-join area? It's one thing to have a man walk around with his shirt off -- but it's something else to make him push his pants down this stupidly low. It's JUST NOT NECESSARY and also makes Thor look like he's too dumb to understand the concept of belts.

Ultimately...
In the end... the problems I mentioned above really interfered with my enjoyment of the movie. Oh, I wasn't as actively bored or annoyed as during previous Thor romps -- but neither was this an ideal experience, lacking in characterization, story and any sense of there being "stakes" for the main characters. They made up for this with constant dumb jokes, which sometimes worked but mostly didn't. There were okay performances of lackluster material -- but at least it was a lot more colorful than previous outings.

In the end, I have to break out a new rating for my blog:

VERY WEAKLY RECOMMENDED

On My Shelf: The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

Only half of this movie actually qualifies as a Halloween movie, and not the first half.... which is why I saved it for post-Halloween time.



This is an odd anthology movie (if you can call an anthology when it only has two parts); produced by Disney out of two separate stories that weren't quite long enough on their own, so they crammed them together on the weak premise that they were both from "literature".
Plot (I): Mr. Toad is a jerk! He has a passion for fads with things that go at high speed -- an all-consuming passion that causes him to get into debt and mortgage not only his future but his ancestral estate. He keeps going on this path until he stumbles across a new invention, THE MOTORCAR. He immediately buys stolen goods and gets arrested like an idiot. Then he escapes from jail and only avoids having to return with a legal loophole (at Christmas).


Plot (II): Ichabod Crane is a jerk! He's a lanky weirdo who arrives in a small New England town which is also populated by self-centered weirdos, including Brom Bones (town braggadocio) and Katrina Van Tassel (town egotistical flirt). It would be one thing if Ichabod Crane just wanted to be the local schoolmaster and go about his business -- but he seems intent on eating everything in sight  and flirting with everything in a skirt -- until he meets Katrina, whose money is he most enamored with. He and Brom Bones battle it out for her attentions, until Halloween night... 


Thoughts

Why did Disney decide to put together two stories where the only connective tissue is that the main characters happen to be huge jerks?

I happen to know the answer to this question -- and I've already more or less answered it above. Both stories were more or less proposed as solo-films, but due to wartime shortages of animators, Mr. Toad wound up being shelved for a while and never fully completed -- and Sleepy Hollow wound up being just plain too short. So, just make up the difference with narration, right? Provide a loose connective tissue where we see a bookshelf and then the narrators introduce the stories? They got esteemed British actor Basil Rathbone (aka the 1940's Sherlock Holmes) to provide some narration for Mr. Toad (mainly just to fill in gaps)...

I like Basil Rathbone, so no problem there....and 1930's singer/heartthrob Bing Crosby to provide full narration (all characters, and sing songs).
I also like Bing Crosby, so hard to complain about that!...Which, even as a child, struck me as a bit odd. Can anybody else tell me if Disney ever did that again -- had just one person provide all the voice-over work for a feature cartoon?

Animation

The animation in both cartoons is beautiful, of course. Mr. Toad climaxes with a hilariously, over-the-top violent fight scene -- but the best part is the denouement of Sleepy Hollow. It's completely magnificent from the point where Brom Bones tells the headless-horseman story onward.


The headless-horseman chase at the end is definitely on my list of favorite sections of Disney animation, right up there on the "amazing animation" list with the Prince/Dragon battle at the end of Sleeping Beauty.


You can't beat it! I'm not sure there has been a better depiction of the headless horseman... ever. And all subsequent tellings of this story that I have seen demonstrated not only awareness of the cartoon but minor homages to it.

THAT SAID...

... The big problem with both of these cartoons is that both the protagonists are so profoundly unlikeable. I wanted Mr. Toad to go back to jail! He was an idiot with no thought for the concerns of his friends. And Ichabod Crane could have been a sympathetic character -- if they had just left out the minor detail that he was mainly only interested in Katrina's money. In fact, in the version of this that I saw as a child (taped off TV and part of a general Halloween special, so rather abbreviated), they edited out everything that made Ichabod seem like a jerk -- so he was more of a hapless victim, which actually makes the story significantly more palatable.

Ultimately

Do I recommend this Disney film? Yes and no. MOSTLY no, because if you're actually paying attention to the stories, it's really not a highly enjoyable experience. Yes, if you're just going to watch the animation and listen to the music (or, maybe, if you're planning on just paying attention during the climax of Sleepy Hollow). So, for once a "recommended with reservations" doesn't cut it -- and neither does a flat "no", so...

MOSTLY "NO"

Halloween Shelf: The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1980)

Last year when we were watching the Tim Burton Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1999), we hypothesized a number of things that would have made the movie significantly better -- one of which was appropriately casting the lead role. (Johnny Depp kind of ruined it. Not that it was entirely his fault; he was miscast. And the script wasn't all that great to begin with.)

Our top picks were skinny, young Nicholas Cage, and skinny, young Jeff Goldblum. While scrolling through YouTube this year, Mr. Hall was very shocked to discover that the latter scenario actually happened -- there was a 1980 The Legend of Sleepy Hollow starring skinny, baby Jeff Goldblum. Ideal casting, right?!



Plot: Ichabod Crane is the new schoolmaster for Sleepy Hollow. He is informed there is a ghost in these here parts called The Headless Horseman. He is somewhat concerned by these reports of ghosts and kind of thinks he sees some things, and the folks in these parts begin to think he's going peculiar -- so they come up with the brilliant scheme to marry him off to some lady (because that will cure him of his fear of ghosts). However, there's a pretty girl named Katrina who he becomes smitten with, and she's not the one they want to marry him to...
The full movie! For free! With AMAZING VINTAGE COMMERCIALS!
Plot Problems It seems like every version of the story of Sleepy Hollow that I've seen has gotten hung up on something that made it a less-than-perfect experience. This version went, "That Washington Irving Sleepy Hollow story is just too short. We need to flesh it out with a subplot about... other ghosts! And Ichabod's boss deciding that he needs to get married! And we need to put some other lady in the story who wants to marry Bram Bones, so that there's this love-triangle thing..." In other words, there was too much fluff in this movie. The "other ghosts" subplots wound up more confusing than anything else. And do you know what gets lost under the weight of the marriage subplots? Oh, just a little story about a HEADLESS HORSEMAN which is the whole reason why anybody cares about Sleepy Hollow.
Actor Problems Oddly, the most immediate and obvious problem with this movie (like the 1999 version) is also the casting. The first thing that we see wrong is that the town bully, Bram Bones, is played by none other than Chicago football legend Dick Butkus. (No, I'm not kidding.)

...Who is not only patently not an actor, but is also not in the least bit scary or intimidating as the town bully. He comes across as slightly grumpy, but mainly a cuddly old-school Chicagoan (like one of Bill Swerski's Superfans) -- the kind of person you would want to have be your Dad. Now, I wholly appreciate that he would probably be Very Scary if you happened to be holding a football and he didn't want you to hold that football (Butkus on the field is said to have been "a well-conditioned animal, and every time he hit you, he tried to put you in the cemetery, not the hospital..."). But in this role... Oh dear. So not scary. Just very harmless and very time-period, and location, inappropriate.
AND THEN THERE'S THIS GUY.
"Look innocent." "Like this?" "Yeah, whatever."Oh, Jeff Goldblum. LITTLE DID I THINK YOU COULD BE MISCAST IN THIS ROLE. But he was -- he so was. Because, watching this, I discovered something that I kind of knew already; Jeff Goldblum isn't a bad actor, but there are two versions of him: he's either a) the very 1970's-style "natural" actor, or b) heightened Jeff Goldblum. You've seen this "heightened Jeff Goldblum" in films like Independence Day or Jurassic Park, where he's very goofy and over-the-top, and it works in those movies. "Natural, 1970's-style" Jeff Goldblum is similar, but more realistic.
"And so the aliens get taken down by - get this - a computer virus."
(Dick Butkus is unconvinced.)Casting Jeff Goldblum in a role where he has to deliver theatrical, period-style lines of dialogue, was an error of epic proportions. NOT EVEN *JEFF GOLDBLUM* APPEARS TO BELIEVE JEFF GOLDBLUM DELIVERING THESE LINES.
Now, if you don't understand what I mean by "theatrical, period-style lines of dialogue," allow me to present this scene from the 1951 version of Scrooge, as performed by two actors who knew how to speak old-timey language and present it in a heightened fashion:

Compare that to the first couple minutes of this movie... Watch it to the point that the other guy shows up with the sleigh to take Ichabod to town and says something about widows making the best wives.

... Do you see what I mean? Do you believe Jeff Goldblum as Ichabod Crane? Everything about Jeff Goldblum screams, "I don't understand why I'm in this movie." I'm not saying he's not making an effort, but he does not have the rhythm of the language. Of course, DO YOU BELIEVE ANYBODY IN THAT SCENE? Except maybe the eccentric old man with the sleigh?
The funny thing is, Jeff Goldblum, as-is, could have worked in this movie, IF the director had been aware who Jeff Goldblum was, what his acting style was, and played with it. If they had made his weird delivery part of his character -- and had everybody else like, "Why is he talking like that? What a weirdo this Ichabod Crane is..." It could have worked.
I'm serious! It could have worked! Maybe.But they didn't do that -- they insisted on trying to get a period-appropriate performance out of Jeff Goldblum (and Dick Butkus, for that matter) -- and it was just wholly a very strange experience because of how poorly it worked.

(Although frankly, even if they had attempted to play the movie around the weirdness and out-of-place-ness of Jeff Goldblum, I don't think the rest of the cast was composed of talented enough actors to get a multi-layered issue like that across to the audience.)
Side-note: Actress Meg Foster was in this movie as Katrina Van Tassel. 
AKA "That Lady Who Usually Plays Evil People
Because She Has Really Extreme Looking Eyes".She was fine. As was the other lady (the widow who wants to hook up with Bram Bones, thus creating the love triangle - or love square, as the case may be) in the movie. They were both fine. Although I guess I could say that Meg Foster was kind of wasted. She wasn't in the movie very much, and didn't have much to do when she was there.
Ultimately... All of this is not to say that I didn't basically enjoy watching the movie. It was mystifying and embarrassing and funny to watch Jeff Goldblum-style acting stuck in a broad, period piece -- not to mention the hilariousness wrong-ness of Dick Butkus. 
And also not to mention that the version of the movie that I've linked to above was taped off TV -- and has all the 1980's TV-commercial goodness still attached. That adds an extra layer of fun. 
A chocolatey layer of fun!So, basically, what I'm saying is -- yeah, this qualifies as a "good bad movie". It was basically enjoyable to watch and laugh at, even if it was a bit lacking in the "headless horseman" category (because when he does finally make an appearance, the cinematography is so horrendous you basically can't see him or figure out what's going on). I'm not saying I'll watch it every day, or even every Halloween -- but I'm not displeased that I did. I'm on a bit of Jeff Goldblum kick this Halloween, so it fit right in. So, if you need a good-bad-movie this Halloween... check this one out!
RECOMMENDED(With "GOOD BAD MOVIE"-type Reservations)

Halloween Shelf: The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

I've seen the 1950's Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. But I had never seen the 1970's version. I had it on good faith from my parents that it was dumb and couldn't hold a candle to the 1950's version.

But I decided to watch it anyway and find out for myself.



Plot: Donald Sutherland works for the health department, and his lady friend comes to work with an odd claim -- her boyfriend isn't her boyfriend. He looks exactly the same, but something about him is utterly different and she's concerned that she's going crazy. Donald reassures her, but begins to notice weird things going on around town...

Things It Did Right!

I can't fault this movie for its casting. I knew Donald Sutherland was in the lead role -- but I was surprised to discover, as the film spooled out, that it also featured Leonard Nimoy (as a psychologist friend) and none other than skinny, baby Jeff Goldblum (as another friend of theirs whose relationship with them is really unclear).


And then it turned out Jeff Goldblum's wife was played by the (grown up) little girl from the Alfred Hitchcock movie The Birds. So, I enjoyed those surprises. Everybody gave good performances and were pretty convincing at what they were asked to do.

Problems
In case you're not aware, there was a prior Invasion of the Body Snatchers movie made in 1956, starring Kevin McCarthy (of UHF fame).


The premise is essentially the same. People begin to get concerned that people they know somehow aren't those people. It's a scary, interesting premise -- nicely filmed -- and, frankly, the 1956 movie carries it off pretty effectively. It's creepy and scary and well-acted.

And, in my opinion, the 1978 movie does compare poorly to the 1950's movie.

Bits and Pieces
The movie felt the need to over-explain some things -- like, repeatedly trying to convince us that there were no aliens in this movie (in spite of the fact this movie begins by showing us alien life arriving on the planet). I think this was a miscalculation on their part. If they're going to follow the same pattern as the original movie, with starting slow and letting the audience wonder whether or not people are crazy or whether there really is a threat (and if there is a threat, what the nature of it is), they needed to not explain at the beginning that yes, there really is a threat and here's the nature of it.


Granted, the movie is called "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" -- so it's a good bet there's some kind of invasion, and that some body-snatching of some nature takes place. But they didn't need to spell it out completely at the beginning of the film. Why tell us right off the bat it's aliens? It was aliens in the first movie -- maybe, this time around it's something different. Maybe it's zombies, or demons, or a naturally occurring bacteria that comes out of a volcano every 10,000 years and causes a leap in evolution... WHATEVER. Even if it's not different, at least make us wonder whether it might be different.

Also, why does Donald Sutherland work for the Health Department when it doesn't really figure into the movie? Working for the government in a generic sense more or less does -- but not his main job, which is inspecting restaurants.

Also, Kevin McCarthy (star of the 1950's film) made a special appearance in this movie -- with lines that he delivered in the original film. It was a bit of an overly-cute callback for this type of movie, i.e. the grim 1970's sci-fi downer.


Not to spoil anything... but this was the best picture of him I could find.Story
There's a situation in this movie which was a microcosm of the larger problems with the film -- and this is it:

As much as I enjoyed the surprise of finding young Jeff Goldblum in this film, I was really confused as to his character in relation to the rest of the characters in the film. Leonard Nimoy is a psychologist that Donald Sutherland knows, who is brought into play when people begin to wonder if they are crazy. Jeff Goldblum... is apparently a part-time poet that they both know who is jealous (??) of Leonard Nimoy for unclear reasons (because Nimoy's book, about psychology, is more popular than Jeff Goldblum's book on poetry?) ... and he also owns a mud-bath parlour.

"I like flowers, too. Did I mention that?"I am so confused. Why is a part-time poet angry that his poetry didn't get ready at Leonard Nimoy's book signing? -- and why is it such a big deal anyway that his poetry didn't get read, when he seems to have a thriving mud parlour business and is happily married? For a supporting character, he was hopelessly and needlessly complicated, and then never explained. I'm not saying you can't have an odd supporting character -- or a supporting character who is unique or weird in some way -- but why in ways that didn't make sense or support anything? Especially when, "He's my brother, and he hates that I have a popular book and he doesn't," is practically all the explanation we needed?

As I said, this is a smaller version of a larger problem of the movie -- which is the story itself. The 1950's version is pretty direct about what the threat is and how it works. This movie stirs up the waters and makes them pretty murky; the first person taken over by a body-snatcher immediately loses his interest in sports -- however, later "snatched" people are shown still going about their routine activities -- going to book signings, managing porn theaters, etc. Does it remove your personality or doesn't it? And if it just removes your emotions -- do you still attend showings at a porn theater, just because it was something your pre-snatched persona used to do? Very unclear. Plus, it seems as though people taken over by body-snatchers share some kind of group mind at times -- and at other times, you can totally buffalo them into thinking that you're one of them "by showing no emotion".  The "mechanism" of how the body-snatching works is both over-explained and muddied.

Ultimately...
It wasn't a bad movie to watch -- a bit grim, but I had an idea how it was going to work out in the end already, so it didn't really depress me or anything like that. And the acting and special effects were good (I especially enjoyed the scene where we finally get to see what happens to the original body of someone who is body-snatched. A very nice practical effect!) However, there were a lot of weird story choices made, and it wasted a lot of time muddying story waters that didn't need to be muddied and clarifying story waters that didn't need to be clarified.

I'd recommend it for a viewing, especially if you happen to like some of the actors involved -- but beware that it's far from a perfect experience.

RecommendedWith Reservations