Jamie Alexandre Hall's Blog, page 5

On My Shelf: Neverending Story (1984)

I did see The Neverending Story as a child, thanks to our friends, The Smiths, who had cable. I thought that it was amazing, but I was also somewhat confused by it, because I couldn't figure out if it was a foreign movie or not, and I thought that I had only seen half of it.

Watching it as an adult, I can understand why I felt that way.



Plot: Bastian, a young boy whose mother recently passed away, has trouble with daydreaming (according to his Major Dad). Bastian attempts to knuckle down to reality and go to school, but is waylaid by bullies -- who he avoids by hiding in a bookstore. The creepy, low-rent Wilfred Brimley who owns the store reverse-psycologies him into "borrowing" a weird book titled The Neverending Story. Bastian shows up so late for school that he decides to just ditch, and lets himself into the school's attic, where he reads the book for the rest of the day. He finds himself drawn into a weird, fantastical story (is it a daydream, or is it real?!) with many creative characters and scenic backdrops.

And sometimes it's just a kid sitting in a dark attic, crying
and talking to himself.The Good Things...

The Music
The music might be the single best thing about this movie. It's 80's music with a 70's disco beat -- and still features the soaring, fantastical qualities of a good fantasy movie soundtrack. Not surprisingly, perhaps, since it was done by Giorgio Moroder -- the guy who did the memorable theme to the movie Midnight Express  (even if you've never seen or heard of that movie, you've probably heard that theme) and also wrote the quintessential 80's Top Ten hit, Take My Breath Away .

The Visuals
Although I didn't really like the look of the character-design when I was a kid (specifically, I found Falkor the Luck Dragon's face gross)...

"But how could you find the ugly, flesh-colored weasel-dog
with a human nose gross?"...I really, really like the scenery and the set-design and the matte-paintings. This is classic 1980's fantasy movie material. I would watch this movie just for the scenery. It's so beautiful and so creative. I would take one movie that looks like this movie over a hundred modern CGI nightmares.

It's so pretty.  The Darkness
For a kid's movie, this film goes into some really dark places...

Literally and figuratively.... And I'm counting that as a good thing. Too often, children's movies have zero stakes because filmmakers were apparently afraid of "frightening" or "upsetting" children. And you know what? That makes for boring, bland, bad children's movies. Kids didn't love E.T. because of how neutral it made them feel. And do you know of any adults who have PTSD because they saw Raiders of the Lost Ark when they were little? And how many people are unable to function now because The Goonies main-characters went through such peril? NONE, that's how many. In a good movie, characters must face some form of dire circumstances (physically, emotionally, or whatever), or else it's simply going to fail as a movie. The end.

The Nothing...

Nit-Picky Points
Like I said... the movie does make some questionable choices. Not all their character designs are what one might term "attractive." And... I can't help but wonder why they dubbed Deep Roy's voice.
Left, Deep Roy. Right... uh, I don't know his name.For the uninitiated, Deep Roy is a little person with an extensive acting portfolio. You might have seen him in classic Doctor Who episodes, or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (as all the "Oompa Loompas") or as "the little person" in one of a billion other things (Transformers II, Alien from L.A., etc.) But for some reason, in this movie, they put him in a scene where everything seems to be in scale with him, so that one can't really tell how tall he is -- and they dub his "little" voice over with the ordinary voice of a full-sized man. It's really peculiar, because it basically nullifies the point of hiring a physically little person; he doesn't sound or look little. Why would you do that? What's the point?

Also, although I've gotten used to Falkor's voice (performed by Alan Oppenheimer of Skeletor fame) I still dislike Falkor's face. But I'm sure that's just a personal thing and everyone else finds his horrible, stiff, gaping maw simply adorable.


"Ain't From Around Here"
 I really understand my confusion as a child. This still feels like a foreign movie. From the inexplicably dubbed characters at the beginning, to the surprise I always feel when I see Gerald McRaney in this film ("What's he doing in a foreign movie? ... Oh wait.")  ... There's something about it that just feels like a movie made "elsewhere". And perhaps that's not surprising. It's based on a German fantasy novel (Die unendliche Geschichte) ... and was filmed in Germany with a mainly European cast. The "not American" feel really rubs off, but not in a way that I can really put my finger on. Just something about the rhythm, and the cinematography... and the casting... and the dialogue...

Weak Central Problem
What amounts to the main plot problem is that Bastian's Dad has asked him to keep his head out of the clouds and stop failing school on account of daydreams.

Pictured: A "no daydream" smoothie in the making.To that end, Bastian absolutely resists getting involved in 'the neverending story' ... WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY SKIPPING AN ENTIRE DAY OF SCHOOL, MISSING AN IMPORTANT MATH TEST, AND DOUBTLESSLY MAKING HIS DAD THINK HE HAS BEEN ABDUCTED, SO THAT HE CAN READ A NOVEL.

Since Bastian has already completely disobeyed his Father's wishes, bigtime, there is no reason on earth for him to avoid getting involved in the story; by the point that his resisting becomes an issue, it's pretty much nonsensical for him to resist.

Just a Half
The film starts a bit slow, it hits beats at weird points (for instance -- the scene above with the horse feels like it should happen near the end of the film, when our character is at his lowest point... not where it is, shortly after the beginning of the film) and then the story just kind of plods along and takes its time, and characters do things that have no relevance and meaning. Then, just when things finally start going, and you're all excited and you're like, "Now it's getting good! I can't wait to see what happens next!" ... it VERY ABRUPTLY ends.

"Oh... so that's it, huh?"Turns out there's a good reason for this: they made half the book into this movie. (A fact which apparently majorly irked the author). It does seem like a bit of an odd call to make half a children's book into a movie -- especially when the title of it is "The Neverending Story". Not only is it not "neverending" -- it's not even a whole story.

Ultimately

I love the way this movie looks and sounds, and I like the story elements (mainly the part about the neverending story world being absorbed by "the nothing" and how the fantastical characters attempt to combat that) -- but the plot structure and characters are pretty weak. Atreyu gets a bit high-pitched and does a bit too much yelling at points, and his motivation doesn't always make sense; Bastian's motivation also doesn't always make sense; and I ultimately can't tell whether or not the philosophy behind the film actually works.

Let me explain what I mean by that. There seems to be a vague implication that the businessmen of the world (like boring old Dad) are destroying the world through their lack of imagination -- not to mention all that "keep your feet on the ground and turn in your homework on time" jazz, which clearly stifles the joy in life. But you know what? If there weren't Gerald McRaneys out there, making sure bills get paid and people fulfil their "non-fun, non-creative" responsibilities, Bastian would be doing his daydreaming in a cardboard box out in an alley (where they now live. Because Dad got fired for not showing up to work, and then they got thrown out of their house for non-payment of the rent). Creative types love to rag on non-creative types, as if they're cavemen with no understanding of the finer things in life -- but you know what? Both types are necessary for the functioning of society. It's a thing. So, even though I consider myself a relatively creative person, I have to take exception to the apparent philosophy of the film, and its tendency to slam non-creative types. Agatha Christie once said, "Imagination is a good servant, but a bad master," and I think that's highly applicable here.

"For instance, my imagination tells me to
straight-up murder you," she seems to say....Oh, yeah, and would I recommend this movie? Yes, but with all the reservations I mentioned above. It's not a great movie, but it has a creative concept, and it looks and sounds nice. It gets a solid... C+. It's basically a pleasant screen-saver for me, excellent background noise, and doesn't bare a lot of close scrutiny.
RECOMMENDED(with pretty heavy reservations)

Neverending Story (1984)

I did see The Neverending Story as a child, thanks to our friends, The Smiths, who had cable. I thought that it was amazing, but I was also somewhat confused by it, because I couldn't figure out if it was a foreign movie or not, and I thought that I had only seen half of it.

Watching it as an adult, I can understand why I felt that way.



Plot: Bastian, a young boy whose mother recently passed away, has trouble with daydreaming (according to his Major Dad). Bastian attempts to knuckle down to reality and go to school, but is waylaid by bullies -- who he avoids by hiding in a bookstore. The creepy, low-rent Wilfred Brimley who owns the store reverse-psycologies him into "borrowing" a weird book titled The Neverending Story. Bastian shows up so late for school that he decides to just ditch, and lets himself into the school's attic, where he reads the book for the rest of the day. He finds himself drawn into a weird, fantastical story (is it a daydream, or is it real?!) with many creative characters and scenic backdrops.

And sometimes it's just a kid sitting in a dark attic, crying
and talking to himself.The Good Things...

The Music
The music might be the single best thing about this movie. It's 80's music with a 70's disco beat -- and still features the soaring, fantastical qualities of a good fantasy movie soundtrack. Not surprisingly, perhaps, since it was done by Giorgio Moroder -- the guy who did the memorable theme to the movie Midnight Express  (even if you've never seen or heard of that movie, you've probably heard that theme) and also wrote the quintessential 80's Top Ten hit, Take My Breath Away .

The Visuals
Although I didn't really like the look of the character-design when I was a kid (specifically, I found Falkor the Luck Dragon's face gross)...

"But how could you find the ugly, flesh-colored weasel-dog
with a human nose gross?"...I really, really like the scenery and the set-design and the matte-paintings. This is classic 1980's fantasy movie material. I would watch this movie just for the scenery. It's so beautiful and so creative. I would take one movie that looks like this movie over a hundred modern CGI nightmares.

It's so pretty.  The Darkness
For a kid's movie, this film goes into some really dark places...

Literally and figuratively.... And I'm counting that as a good thing. Too often, children's movies have zero stakes because filmmakers were apparently afraid of "frightening" or "upsetting" children. And you know what? That makes for boring, bland, bad children's movies. Kids didn't love E.T. because of how neutral it made them feel. And do you know of any adults who have PTSD because they saw Raiders of the Lost Ark when they were little? And how many people are unable to function now because The Goonies main-characters went through such peril? NONE, that's how many. In a good movie, characters must face some form of dire circumstances (physically, emotionally, or whatever), or else it's simply going to fail as a movie. The end.

The Nothing...

Nit-Picky Points
Like I said... the movie does make some questionable choices. Not all their character designs are what one might term "attractive." And... I can't help but wonder why they dubbed Deep Roy's voice.
Left, Deep Roy. Right... uh, I don't know his name.For the uninitiated, Deep Roy is a little person with an extensive acting portfolio. You might have seen him in classic Doctor Who episodes, or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (as all the "Oompa Loompas") or as "the little person" in one of a billion other things (Transformers II, Alien from L.A., etc.) But for some reason, in this movie, they put him in a scene where everything seems to be in scale with him, so that one can't really tell how tall he is -- and they dub his "little" voice over with the ordinary voice of a full-sized man. It's really peculiar, because it basically nullifies the point of hiring a physically little person; he doesn't sound or look little. Why would you do that? What's the point?

Also, although I've gotten used to Falkor's voice (performed by Alan Oppenheimer of Skeletor fame) I still dislike Falkor's face. But I'm sure that's just a personal thing and everyone else finds his horrible, stiff, gaping maw simply adorable.


"Ain't From Around Here"
 I really understand my confusion as a child. This still feels like a foreign movie. From the inexplicably dubbed characters at the beginning, to the surprise I always feel when I see Gerald McRaney in this film ("What's he doing in a foreign movie? ... Oh wait.")  ... There's something about it that just feels like a movie made "elsewhere". And perhaps that's not surprising. It's based on a German fantasy novel (Die unendliche Geschichte) ... and was filmed in Germany with a mainly European cast. The "not American" feel really rubs off, but not in a way that I can really put my finger on. Just something about the rhythm, and the cinematography... and the casting... and the dialogue...

Weak Central Problem
What amounts to the main plot problem is that Bastian's Dad has asked him to keep his head out of the clouds and stop failing school on account of daydreams.

Pictured: A "no daydream" smoothie in the making.To that end, Bastian absolutely resists getting involved in 'the neverending story' ... WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY SKIPPING AN ENTIRE DAY OF SCHOOL, MISSING AN IMPORTANT MATH TEST, AND DOUBTLESSLY MAKING HIS DAD THINK HE HAS BEEN ABDUCTED, SO THAT HE CAN READ A NOVEL.

Since Bastian has already completely disobeyed his Father's wishes, bigtime, there is no reason on earth for him to avoid getting involved in the story; by the point that his resisting becomes an issue, it's pretty much nonsensical for him to resist.

Just a Half
The film starts a bit slow, it hits beats at weird points (for instance -- the scene above with the horse feels like it should happen near the end of the film, when our character is at his lowest point... not where it is, shortly after the beginning of the film) and then the story just kind of plods along and takes its time, and characters do things that have no relevance and meaning. Then, just when things finally start going, and you're all excited and you're like, "Now it's getting good! I can't wait to see what happens next!" ... it VERY ABRUPTLY ends.

"Oh... so that's it, huh?"Turns out there's a good reason for this: they made half the book into this movie. (A fact which apparently majorly irked the author). It does seem like a bit of an odd call to make half a children's book into a movie -- especially when the title of it is "The Neverending Story". Not only is it not "neverending" -- it's not even a whole story.

Ultimately

I love the way this movie looks and sounds, and I like the story elements (mainly the part about the neverending story world being absorbed by "the nothing" and how the fantastical characters attempt to combat that) -- but the plot structure and characters are pretty weak. Atreyu gets a bit high-pitched and does a bit too much yelling at points, and his motivation doesn't always make sense; Bastian's motivation also doesn't always make sense; and I ultimately can't tell whether or not the philosophy behind the film actually works.

Let me explain what I mean by that. There seems to be a vague implication that the businessmen of the world (like boring old Dad) are destroying the world through their lack of imagination -- not to mention all that "keep your feet on the ground and turn in your homework on time" jazz, which clearly stifles the joy in life. But you know what? If there weren't Gerald McRaneys out there, making sure bills get paid and people fulfil their "non-fun, non-creative" responsibilities, Bastian would be doing his daydreaming in a cardboard box out in an alley (where they now live. Because Dad got fired for not showing up to work, and then they got thrown out of their house for non-payment of the rent). Creative types love to rag on non-creative types, as if they're cavemen with no understanding of the finer things in life -- but you know what? Both types are necessary for the functioning of society. It's a thing. So, even though I consider myself a relatively creative person, I have to take exception to the apparent philosophy of the film, and its tendency to slam non-creative types. Agatha Christie once said, "Imagination is a good servant, but a bad master," and I think that's highly applicable here.

"For instance, my imagination tells me to
straight-up murder you," she seems to say....Oh, yeah, and would I recommend this movie? Yes, but with all the reservations I mentioned above. It's not a great movie, but it has a creative concept, and it looks and sounds nice. It gets a solid... C+. It's basically a pleasant screen-saver for me, excellent background noise, and doesn't bare a lot of close scrutiny.
RECOMMENDED(with pretty heavy reservations)

Off My Shelf: Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989)

This was one of those movies that, at the time, everybody seemed to like. But now, nobody talks about it anymore.



I'd gotten a recent hankering to re-watch this film and see why that was. After all, I hadn't seen it since the point that the elder children in the film (the teenagers) were still older than me.... and I'm now old enough to be their Mom -- so I would essentially be viewing it with fresh eyes. Maybe it wouldn't hold up! Maybe it was too "of its time period". Maybe the special effects looked crappy -- and, it was mainly a special-effects movie, so that could definitely be a problem.

Actually, though, I was pleasantly surprised.

Plot: Rick Moranis (a kooky inventor who has unsuccessfully been trying to build a "shrink ray" machine) and his wife are having issues, and their two kids are a bit stressed out about it. Meanwhile, the next door neighbors (Matt Frewer and co.) are having some family issues -- the older boy and Matt don't see eye-to-eye on things. While Rick Moranis is out, the younger neighbor boy accidentally hits a baseball through the window of Rick Moranis' house -- accidentally turning ON the shrink ray machine. All the kids wind up going up to retrieve the ball, and adventure ensues...

Look at this set they built for this movie! This is beautiful!Okay. It must be said -- this is a special effects movie. And for starring a man known as a comedian -- Rick Moranis -- he doesn't really have a whole lot to do in this movie. Ostensibly a "kooky inventor" -- he's very strongly in "benign Dad" territory as far as characterisation goes. (Not that he isn't ever funny, and not that he doesn't work with what he's got. He definitely has some funny reactions to things later in the film -- but this is hardly a Rick Moranis showcase film.) Matt Frewer has some funny moments, although I'm confused as to why he sometimes has a country accent and why he (mostly) doesn't.

However, for having been made right on the cusp of the digital revolution in movies... the special effects look great. They were practical effects -- a combination of blue screen, miniatures and stop-motion -- and it looks beautiful. (Probably the worst thing about CGI is that stop-motion had really just been mastered right before CGI became a thing -- and then, after the advent of CGI, stop-motion was dropped like a hot potato, despite how beautiful it had become). Oh, there are a handful of blue-screen shots that look a little sketchy -- but the majority of the special effects look better than CGI. FAR better than CGI.

I was comparing a scene where two of the kids hitch a ride on a giant bee....



...To another more recent movie that featured people riding on a giant bee:


...And in EVERY WAY the scene in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids was wholly superior, both in tone, special effects, shot variety, "stakes", and being "convincing" as to what the experience of riding on a giant bee would be like.

Not that I didn't have a few minor issues with a few minor points in this film. (Most notably.... *Spoiler Warning*: The kids have made it all the way across the yard -- and their parents are there! But the parents can't hear them yelling, so the kids despair: "They'll never find us. We'll never get back in the house." Instantly, the family dog is there and they just ride him back into the house, easily arriving on the kitchen table. It seemed like a very hasty wrap-up, and a very convenient way to skip over the problem of the kids having to get back into the house. *End of Spoiler Warning.*) But, honestly, if having one scene wrap up overly hastily is the worst thing I can say about this movie, that's pretty darn good.
Also, I've always hated this joke. Always. Even as a kid.The performances are good. The characters are fairly shallow -- but deep enough for the type of movie that this is (i.e. light comedy/children's adventure movie). We like our heroes, and all the kids are likeable... except for the kid who is supposed to be annoying, and even he learns how to be better person in the end. (Unlike a certain other, more recent movie, that featured children in a harrowing situation with giant insects -- where the awful child learned zero lessons, except for how to be selfish in a more subtle fashion.)

Ultimately, I think this movie deserves more credit than it gets nowadays. It's on Netflix -- you should totally re-watch it. Or watch it for the first time, and have an enjoyable film experience. There's nothing wrong with this movie, and I think the only reason more people don't talk about it nowadays is its awkward positioning in time right before bigtime CGI special-effects movies (things like Jurassic Park) that overshadowed it. Plus... this is very specifically a kids movie -- so unless you have kids, you probably haven't thought about re-watching it.

I think that's a mistake on your part (and mine). You should watch this movie. It is good, enjoyable, fun and ultimately harmless. (And don't watch Journey 2: Mysterious Island. It is a bad movie.)

RECOMMENDED

On My Shelf: Willow (1988)

So, around the time I was watching all those other 80's fantasy movies, I got an urge to watch Willow. However, our copy had mysteriously vanished! Then, when I went to buy a new copy, I discovered that it is apparently out of print and the only DVD copies on Amazon were ridiculously expensive! In the end, I wound up finding one on eBay that was a reasonable price, and bought that. (It did not mention in the listing that it was a foreign bootleg. It clearly is. I should put it on the shelf next to the copy of On Her Majesty's Secret Service that I bought for Mr. Hall a few years back which also did not mention in the listing it was a foreign bootleg -- but bears the legend on the cover, "Best Home Vedio Foever". Luckily, it's a nice clean copy in both cases, so no real harm done, I guess!)


Plot: Elora Danan is a baby who it is prophesied will bring about the end of the evil enchantress, Bavmorda. She is saved from death and winds up saved from floating down a river by Willow -- one of group of hobbit-like people, the Nelwyns. Willow wants, more than anything, to be a wizard, but keeps getting stymied in his goals. After an attack by wild dogs, their local head wizard tells Willow to take the baby to the crossroads and give it to the first human he meets -- but the first human he meets is a criminal in a cage, and things just get crazier from there. He encounters brownies (tiny, goblin-like people who also live in the woods), fairies, trolls and all the kinds of mystical, magic stuff you would expect in a 1980's fantasy film. There are battles, high-speed (cart) chases, fire-breathing dragons... etc.
Well, I think it's a dragon, anyway.Okay. Willow has something of a bad rap these days. I think it's mainly to do with the awkward timing of the release of this movie -- it used a lot of traditional animation right before CGI became the thing, and it was an 80's fantasy movie right at the end of the line for 80's fantasy movies. (Lucas claims he had the "idea" for Willow in the early 1970's, to which I would respond, "...Was it by any chance while you were reading Lord of the Rings?")


I went through a phase, myself, of thinking it was rather cheesy and out-dated. But after viewing the glut of truly heinous and rank films that Hollywood has been producing for the past twelve years or so, Willow actually looks pretty good! Especially compared to The Hobbit movies!

And here's why...

1. Acting: Everybody in this movie is playing their character at the correct level. The performances are good! (A little cheesy and over-the-top in some spots, but this isn't Dragonslayer -- I'm not looking for any existential angst in this movie.) The characters have clean and easy-to-understand goals. The plot makes clear demands on them. They respond accordingly. That's how things are supposed to work!


2. The Story: There is nothing wrong with the story. It's reminiscent of Lord of the Rings -- except that Frodo's carrying a baby instead of a ring, Aragorn is more of a scalawag, and both Gandalf and Sauron are girls. (And, for that matter, this movie is considerably shorter). It feels like a lived-in world with a real history. (Now, LotR has a lot of philosophical subtext that I do think is lacking in this story, outside of a general "good is good, while bad is definitely bad" kind of thing. That said, I'll take what little moral this movie had to offer over a ghastly, nihilistic mess like Dragonslayer!)


3. The Visuals: It's a Great Looking Movie. Wonderful fantasy settings! (Although a bit more like a 70's fantasy movie, in that respect -- most of the settings appear to be real, physical settings as opposed to 80's movies, which so desperately loved the extravagant matte-painting -- or modern movies, that are so desperately in love with CGI that it's hard to make a clean distinction between a modern movie and a modern cartoon movie...)



Here are the things that don't work as well:

1. The Special Effects: Okay. I was really on the fence about whether I actually ought to put this amongst the "good things" -- because there are some really good special effects in this movie. However, there are also some really bad special effects in this movie. (And it's hard to blame the 1980's for the lack of perfection when a movie like Darby O'Gill and the Little People was doing better special effects in 1959.) Honestly, the special effects are just kind of hit-and-miss -- going back and forth between really good stuff, groundbreaking stuff, even -- and just really sloppy stuff.

1959, folks. No computers - and yet, all the people pictured here are
real, full-sized people, all filmed at the same time by the same camera.2. The Score: The score is fine. But there were times, during the fight scenes, that I felt a similar theme just got repeated a few times too often.

3. The Length: I think the movie could have been tightened up and shaved down a little. We could have shaved a hair off the slapstick comedy and a few other things. All and all, it's not a MAJOR problem, but just something to consider.



4. Where's the Willow? Although this movie is called "Willow" -- the latter half of this film, the "swash-buckling adventure" part, is Val Kilmer's. Willow made a few appearances, but mostly just to scream the name of Val Kilmer's character. Oh, Willow had a few bits and pieces in the second part of the movie where he was "learning to use magic" -- but it's just not his movie anymore.

In SUMMARY...

Despite these few minor issues, I think Willow stands up well, doesn't come across as dated (except in those few odd, bad special effects) -- and it's basically an enjoyable viewing experience. Fine performances, fun scenario. Anybody who missed out on it the first time around (or only knows it based on its "this is a bad movie!" reputation) should give it a shot. And that's really all I have to say about that!

RECOMMENDED(with extremely minor reservations).

Off My Shelf: Wonder Woman (2017)

I had real doubts about going to see this movie.


For one thing, I went to see Batman v. Superman last year, and I have never been so angry upon coming out of a movie theater. And this movie is attached to that movie; it's in the same "cinematic universe". So I really didn't want to pay full-price for this movie, because I'm fully aware that they're going to take the money from this movie and just use it to make more TERRIBLE SUPERMAN MOVIES THAT UTTERLY MISS THE POINT ABOUT SUPERMAN.

Left, Superman. Right, Missing the Point.For another thing... (I hate to even talk about this, because I like to avoid "politics" talk whenever I can, but it must be mentioned)... I dislike that the movie became abruptly politicized by the actions of Alamo Drafthouse. (In case you missed it: the Alamo Drafthouse theater decided to throw a female-only showing of the Wonder Woman movie, which in some quarters was not well-received.)

In itself, I don't care if they decide to do an all-female OR an all-male showing of any movie. Whatever. What I didn’t like is the way a lot of folks in the media immediately characterized of anyone who had the slightest issue with the event as a woman-hating idiot who thinks that any large gathering of women has to be a coven of some kind (do a Google search on Wonder Woman + Alamo Drafthouse and see what the general tone is of the first few articles you read. At best, condescending, and at worst... quite perturbing).


Now, I'm not saying that there aren’t any jerks out there on the internet who did actually say bad, inappropriate things about the event (I don't think anyone would ever make the claim that there are no jerks on the internet), but I don't think it’s fair to lump every single person who had concerns into the "dimwitted evil bigot" group. For one thing, it’s not true, and for another thing, it discourages the dialogue that could have cleared up the matter for the majority of people. So, BOOOOOOOO, media, for obfuscating yet another issue. Just an all-around bad handling of the situation.

That said, the situation wasn't actually created by the people who made the film, so in the end I gave a mulligan on that.

Plus, I do write this movie blog, and this promised to be one of the bigger releases of the Summer -- and, when it's all said and done, I do actually like the character "Wonder Woman" -- so, I sucked up my concerns in the second category... and I went to a matinee show, so at least not so much of my money is going to be used to make terrible Superman movies.

The Results

Okay.

I basically liked this movie.

That doesn't come with a lot of qualifying statements. I basically liked it. Especially when compared to something like Batman v. Superman, or Man of Steel, or even Superman Returns -- even compared to the bulk of the Marvel superhero movies that (on the whole) tend to be a bit... well, crappy, for my tastes. It was enjoyable. I'd like to see it again.

There! I said it! Are you happy?The Good Stuff

1. It didn't entirely miss the point of the character.
2. It wasn't overly jokey OR too serious.
3. It didn't go to weird lengths to avoid having a romantic relationship between the male and female leads -- or go way too far in the other direction (i.e. wieners).
4. It understood that a "SUPERHERO" is supposed to be "GOOD" and "HEROIC". You get the sense that she really cares about people and doesn't want people to die. Saving people from suffering and death is her raison d'etre. That's how it's supposed to be. And while she does realize in the end that her situation isn't quite black and white -- it also doesn't end with a pile of nihilist garbage (*cough* Man of Steel *cough*) where she doesn't know what's right and wrong anymore.
5. Wonder Woman is naive... but not TOO naive. She's not Dudley Do-Right, but neither is she Wonder Woman...of Steel, moping around and wondering whether there's any point to saving people's lives.
6. Sometimes movies with strong females feel like they have to go in the other direction with their males -- and make them wimpy and passive. They didn't really do that in this movie. Steve Trevor, although somewhat vague on some philosophical points, is basically a good man with clear ideas of right and wrong, and still masculine in spite of hanging around with a woman who could probably throw him into space if she so desired.

This doesn't happen in the movie. But it could have, and it wouldn't
have made Steve any less of a man.The Bits For Which I Did Not Care
I've just got a few niggly points. But some of them are kind of important:

1. The Boat Scene
Okay, the lead guy (Steve) and Wonder Woman have a long discussion on the boat that basically clarifies that Wonder Woman is familiar with the notion of boy parts and isn't naive about what girl parts and boy parts do together. This conversation goes on far too long. It wasn't funny enough and could have been significantly trimmed. Frankly, I was bored.

2. The Sex Scene
As I said -- I appreciate that this movie didn't go too far in this direction; they were very subtle about what was going on. There wasn't stuff that would make me want to cover a child's eyes. Basically, Wonder Woman and Steve are making eyes at each other in a bedroom -- and then Steve shuts the door. End of scene. It was subtle enough that the little kids watching aren't going to get it. You can even make the argument that maybe they didn't even have sex -- because nothing is shown, and it's never referenced again. THAT SAID, THOUGH, since it was never shown and never referenced again (and seemingly didn't change their relationship in any way, nor did it advance the plot)... why did it happen? If it's not advancing the plot, and doesn't make any difference to the characters, why is this scene in there in the first place? 
Don't ask me. I'm just a ham-fisted villain.3. The Germans
For them doing some good stuff with the heroes... the villains felt like they had been cribbed out of the lesser X-Men movies (okay, if you want to get really technical, maybe I was thinking that because the guy who played the main German and the guy who played young William Striker in X-Men Origins: Wolverine [i.e. the acknowledged worst of the X-Men movies] were the same person) and very nearly cribbed directly out of the first Captain America movie. (A lot of, "We're so evil, we're more evil than evil Germans, and that's pretty evil!") Okay... the bad guys in Captain America and the bad guys in this are both Germans during a time of war -- I get it, there's going to be some overlap. But in both cases, Captain America and this, the German villains were so cartoonishly one-dimensional that they just didn't really work for me.
"I don't really look like this in the movie. That's not a
spoiler, it's just a fact."4. The Ending (SPOILERS!)
Okay, I knew the main German guy wasn't going to turn out to be Ares. That was obvious. Ares wouldn't need magic powder from the German lady that makes him strong and makes his face shiny. That said.... I felt like they kind of skipped over something that should have happened -- namely, Wonder Woman figuring out, on her own, who Ares actually was. She should have had to do some detective work to do, to show that she's not only strong and decisive but smart as well, but no; she eventually susses out that the German guy wasn't Ares because duh, and then Ares just shows up and says, "Hey! I'm Ares!" ... Even though there was no reason for him to reveal himself at that point -- she never even slightly suspected him, and it really would have benefited him, personally, to stay hidden. However, if he didn't show up, they couldn't very well have the big fight scene at the end (which, in itself, I didn't have a problem with -- just the fact that it shouldn't have happened in the first place). Ares revealing his true form in the way he did really was the lamest part of the movie for me.

5. The Moral (SPOILERS!)
Why does Wonder Woman ultimately decide not to turn evil?


...Because "love". Yup. That's all. Not because she loves all of mankind (clearly not since she was just disemboweling random Germans about three seconds ago), not because she loves every living thing (because she blasts Ares into oblivion about three seconds later)... no, just, I have to assume, because she liked Steve she is able to extrapolate "the general concept of love" on to... several other people. 
That's a pretty weak moral, and (when you get right down to it) no better than Superman in Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman doing good things exclusively to save Lois Lane or his Mom, with little or no regard for the man in the street who just had a building fall on him. (Is not wanting your Mom to be torn apart all that heroic? Isn't that just kind of base-level goodness?) I'll give it to the Wonder Woman movie that their version of this did play well on first viewing -- it came across as a (relatively) unselfish reason... But, honestly, if it you start to examine it a bit, it's not the strongest part of the film.
IN SUMMARY....
As I said, I basically had a positive experience at the movie theater and would recommend this movie to you (if you like superhero movies, if you like Wonder Woman, and if you can accept the fact that the moral is vague at best and the ending doesn't work on a couple levels). It wasn't terrible! It wasn't even bad. At worst, this movie has flaws, but not fatal flaws. 
RECOMMENDED(with minor reservations)

On My Shelf: Blues Brothers 2000 (1998)

Remember how I said that The Blues Brothers had some issues, but that after slowly acquiring the taste it was a quirky, enjoyable movie?

Blues Brothers 2000 is nothing like that.



I've watched this movie several times -- mainly because immediately after I watch it, I must bang my head against the wall until I've brain-damaged myself enough that I can no longer remember what happens in it. So I can never recall the contents of this film -- until I watch it again, and it all comes flooding back.

The Plot: It's eighteen years later, and Elwood Blues is finally getting out of prison. He waits for his brother to pick him up -- but, WHOOPS, turns out the prison forgot to tell him that his brother, Jake, is dead. Eventually, a friend of a friend picks him up and he winds up working as an MC at the strip club of one of his former band members. There he meets Mack (John Goodman), a bartender who wants to be a singer. Elwood goes to visit his old Nun friend, who (inexplicably) decides he would be a good mentor for a foster-care child currently in their care. Elwood also discovers through this visit that his own mentor, Curtis, although passed along, had an illegitimate son who is now a police chief. Elwood decides, for unclear reasons, that the thing to do is put the band back together -- and, in the process, gets on the bad side of that police chief, the Russian mafia, and some really-out-of-place far-right-wing nuts. Oh, and there's also stop-motion cowboy ghosts and a scene where they are all turned into zombies.

The zombie scene might have actually been one of the better
bits in the movie... and it still made very little sense.
What this movie has going for it

*A lot of talented musicians make special appearances in this movie. The final "battle of the bands" scene is practically a who's-who of blues music.
*There is a really nice stop-animation of "ghost riders in the sky". Did this movie NEED stop-animation, or ghost-riders in the sky? Did it serve the plot in any sense? No, no, and no. The entire segment was a real "jump the shark" moment for the film, but it just might be the most memorable part of it. I actually really like that segment. (Except for the way the scene begins. And the way it ends. I would explain, but it's too stupid to think about.)

It's a nice-looking number! What can I say?
*There are a few good musical numbers. (But there are also a lot of tedious, unnecessary musical numbers that make the movie feel bloated and sluggish).

What this movie has going against it

Dead Jake:
It's very hard to talk about all the things wrong with this movie... because practically every piece of this movie is wrong. Where do you start when things start going bad immediately after the opening credits? The very first plot element -- that Jake Blues died and nobody told Elwood and now he's sad -- is simply awful, not to mention highly unlikely. If it even needed to be touched on (which is debatable) Jake should have gone in some kind of hilarious, wacky fashion, befitting the character he played. Not THIS ending -- which, we have to assume, is something like "he had a heart attack in his sleep the day before release". This is just lame.



Non-Person Kid and Non-Person John Goodman:
So, Elwood is sad, and then goes to work as an MC at this strip-club run by a former band-mate. And he picks up this kid who inexplicably has no facial expression and sings/dances. And picks up John Goodman, who plays "cuddly benign man with no specific personality traits".

It's not his fault he's got no personality. It's the script.
There is no ultimate point to these characters, outside the fact that Elwood is trying (and evidently failing) to find someone appropriate to fill Jake's shoes. The kid KIND OF does that, in the end, but it's pretty weak.

"Put the Band Back Together..."
And then Elwood decides that what he needs to do is "put the band back together".

WHY?

Why does he need to put the band back together? In the first movie, they had to do it to raise money to keep an orphanage from being closed because God told them to. In this movie, he wants to put the band back together... because... he has ...nothing else to do?

The movie has no driving force whatsoever, and too many characters, and too little purpose for those characters.

(And suffice it to say, the theology behind this film is not sound. This movie did not receive the kudos of the Vatican.)

Not to mention that Elwood, the mostly silent brother from the first movie -- now has to be the main spokesman for the group. It comes off as forced and awkward and there are no characters strong enough for him to play against. He winds up with long, rambling soliloquies which, if only one of them had happened in the film, might have been okay -- but there were several.

Nit-Picking...
Although the beginning of this movie ostensibly takes place in Chicago... it is clearly not Chicago. Kind of insultingly "not Chicago", even, after Chicago playing such an important role in the first movie.

Also... and this is just a small nit-pick... but, the lighting in this movie allowed you, on several occasions, to see through Dan Aykroyd's dark glasses. Like I said, this is just a minor thing... but when one of the main things about your character is that he never removes his dark glasses and you can't see his eyes, it just shows a lack of attention to detail when the lighting allows us to see his eyes.



What might have improved this movie

First of all -- MAKE UP YOUR MIND who you are replacing John Belushi with. Are you replacing him with the kid, or the policeman, or John Goodman? AND THEN FOCUS ON THAT CHARACTER, building his personality and his goals, and forget the rest of them! What is John Goodman's goal in this movie? He kind of wants to sing -- maybe, sort of. And he's benign. The kid's personality? He... dances and plays a harmonica. His only goal (not stated until the end of the film) is not wanting to go to "a foster family who won't love me" (thanks for the scathing indictment of the foster care system, movie.) The policeman's goal? To capture Elwood (until the policemen IS TRANSFORMED BY GOD INTO A BLUES BROTHER, and then his only goal is to sing, and he ceases to have any defining character traits or important goals.)
Yes. This movie features a scene where a policeman shoots
200-feet into the air and is magically transformed by God into a Blues Brother -- clothes and all.
It would have been the "jump the shark" moment if there hadn't been several already.Second of all -- COME UP WITH A PLOT! "Putting the band back together" is meaningless if there is no ultimate reason for doing so other than "because we all enjoy playing music". Clearly, his bandmates don't enjoy playing music that much, since every time the Blues Brothers get taken out of circulation they all run away to real jobs. They needed a larger purpose. The climax of the movie revolves around a "Battle of the Bands" competition at the residence of a (literal) witch, but there were no real stakes to them winning or losing the competition, so it was just a big shoulder-shrug in the end. It needed a central element... Something to make you CARE about what happens. Wouldn't it have been interesting if, since the first movie was about them being on a "mission from God" ... if they had done a "The Devil Goes down to Georgia" type thing...


So, maybe, instead of just battling against a really good blues band, The Blues Brothers Band has their battle of the bands against THE DEVIL'S BLUES BAND, and it's a case of, "If we lose the competition... Elwood goes to hell! Or maybe WE ALL go to hell!" High stakes for everybody! (Would have been a nice place to use the "ghost riders in the sky" segment from earlier, too -- if their music had been so cool that it wound up summoning ghosts and causing all kinds of supernatural consequences....)

In Summation...
This movie was nothing more than a really vague revisiting of the original plot -- in a much sadder and less enjoyable fashion. I can't recommend this movie to fans of the original Blues Brothers, or fans of Dan Aykroyd, or even fans of the celebrities who make special appearances. It has one segment that I like (the ghostriders in the sky animation) -- but that's really not enough to give you even a recommendation with severe reservations.

In the end, it's not "good-bad" -- it's just bad bad. Don't watch it.

NOT RECOMMENDED.

Blues Brothers 2000 (1998)

Remember how I said that The Blues Brothers had some issues, but that after slowly acquiring the taste it was a quirky, enjoyable movie?

Blues Brothers 2000 is nothing like that.



I've watched this movie several times -- mainly because immediately after I watch it, I must bang my head against the wall until I've brain-damaged myself enough that I can no longer remember what happens in it. So I can never recall the contents of this film -- until I watch it again, and it all comes flooding back.

The Plot: It's eighteen years later, and Elwood Blues is finally getting out of prison. He waits for his brother to pick him up -- but, WHOOPS, turns out the prison forgot to tell him that his brother, Jake, is dead. Eventually, a friend of a friend picks him up and he winds up working as an MC at the strip club of one of his former band members. There he meets Mack (John Goodman), a bartender who wants to be a singer. Elwood goes to visit his old Nun friend, who (inexplicably) decides he would be a good mentor for a foster-care child currently in their care. Elwood also discovers through this visit that his own mentor, Curtis, although passed along, had an illegitimate son who is now a police chief. Elwood decides, for unclear reasons, that the thing to do is put the band back together -- and, in the process, gets on the bad side of that police chief, the Russian mafia, and some really-out-of-place far-right-wing nuts. Oh, and there's also stop-motion cowboy ghosts and a scene where they are all turned into zombies.

The zombie scene might have actually been one of the better
bits in the movie... and it still made very little sense.
What this movie has going for it

*A lot of talented musicians make special appearances in this movie. The final "battle of the bands" scene is practically a who's-who of blues music.
*There is a really nice stop-animation of "ghost riders in the sky". Did this movie NEED stop-animation, or ghost-riders in the sky? Did it serve the plot in any sense? No, no, and no. The entire segment was a real "jump the shark" moment for the film, but it just might be the most memorable part of it. I actually really like that segment. (Except for the way the scene begins. And the way it ends. I would explain, but it's too stupid to think about.)

It's nice looking! What can I say?*There are a few good musical numbers. (But there are also a lot of tedious, unnecessary musical numbers that make the movie feel bloated and sluggish).

What this movie has going against it

Dead Jake:
It's very hard to talk about all the things wrong with this movie... because practically every piece of this movie is wrong. Where do you start when things start going bad immediately after the opening credits? The very first plot element -- that Jake Blues died and nobody told Elwood and now he's sad -- is simply awful, not to mention highly unlikely. If it even needed to be touched on (which is debatable) Jake should have gone in some kind of hilarious, wacky fashion, befitting the character he played. There definitely needed to be a "blaze of glory"-type ending for him. Not THIS ending -- which, we have to assume, is something like "he had a heart attack in his sleep the day before release". This is just lame.



Non-Person Kid and Non-Person John Goodman:
So, Elwood is sad, and then goes to work as an MC at this strip-club run by a former band-mate. And he picks up this kid who inexplicably has no facial expression and sings/dances. And picks up John Goodman, who plays "cuddly benign man with no specific personality traits".

It's not his fault he's got no personality. It's the script.
There is no ultimate point to these characters, outside the fact that Elwood is trying (and evidently failing) to find someone appropriate to fill Jake's shoes. The kid KIND OF does that, in the end, but it's pretty weak.

"Put the Band Back Together..."
And then Elwood decides that what he needs to do is "put the band back together".

WHY?

Why does he need to put the band back together? In the first movie, they had to do it to raise money to keep an orphanage from being closed because God told them to. In this movie, he wants to put the band back together... because... he has ...nothing else to do?

The movie has no driving force whatsoever, and too many characters, and too little purpose for those characters.

(And suffice it to say, the theology behind this film is not sound. This movie did not receive the kudos of the Vatican.)

Not to mention that Elwood, the mostly silent brother from the first movie -- now has to be the main spokesman for the group. It comes off as forced and awkward and there are no characters strong enough for him to play against. He winds up with long, rambling soliloquies which, if only one of them had happened in the film, might have been okay -- but there were several.

Nit-Picking...
Although the beginning of this movie ostensibly takes place in Chicago... it is clearly not Chicago. Kind of insultingly "not Chicago", even, after Chicago playing such an important role in the first movie.

Also... and this is just a small nit-pick... but, the lighting in this movie allowed you, on several occasions, to see through Dan Aykroyd's dark glasses. Like I said, this is just a minor thing... but when one of the main things about your character is that he never removes his dark glasses and you can't see his eyes, it just shows a lack of attention to detail when the lighting allows us to see his eyes.



What might have improved this movie

First of all -- MAKE UP YOUR MIND who you are replacing John Belushi with. Are you replacing him with the kid, or the policeman, or John Goodman? AND THEN FOCUS ON THAT CHARACTER, building his personality and his goals, and forget the rest of them! What is John Goodman's goal in this movie? He kind of wants to sing -- maybe, sort of. And he's benign. The kid's personality? He... dances and plays a harmonica. His only goal (not stated until the end of the film) is not wanting to go to "a foster family who won't love me" (thanks for the scathing indictment of the foster care system, movie.) The policeman's goal? To capture Elwood (until the policemen IS TRANSFORMED BY GOD INTO A BLUES BROTHER, and then his only goal is to sing, and he ceases to have any defining character traits or important goals.)
Yes. This movie features a scene where a policeman shoots
200-feet into the air and is magically transformed by God into a Blues Brother -- clothes and all.
It would have been the "jump the shark" moment if there hadn't been several already.Second of all -- COME UP WITH A PLOT! "Putting the band back together" is meaningless if there is no ultimate reason for doing so other than "because we all enjoy playing music". Clearly, his bandmates don't enjoy playing music that much, since every time the Blues Brothers get taken out of circulation they all run away to real jobs. They needed a larger purpose. The climax of the movie revolves around a "Battle of the Bands" competition at the residence of a (literal) witch, but there were no real stakes to them winning or losing the competition, so it was just a big shoulder-shrug in the end. It needed a central element... Something to make you CARE about what happens. Wouldn't it have been interesting since, the first movie was about them being on a "mission from God" ... if they had done a "The Devil Goes down to Georgia" type thing...


So, maybe, instead of just battling against a really good blues band, The Blues Brothers Band has their battle of the bands against THE DEVIL'S BLUES BAND, and it's a case of, "If we lose the competition... Elwood goes to hell! Or maybe WE ALL go to hell!" High stakes for everybody! (Would have been a nice place to use the "ghost riders in the sky" segment from earlier, too -- if their music had been so cool that it wound up summoning ghosts and causing all kinds of supernatural consequences....)

In Summation...
This movie was nothing more than a really vague revisiting of the original plot -- in a much sadder and less enjoyable fashion. I can't recommend this movie to fans of the original Blues Brothers, or fans of Dan Aykroyd, or even fans of the celebrities who make special appearances. It has one segment that I like (the ghostriders in the sky animation) -- but that's really not enough to give you even a recommendation with severe reservations.

In the end, it's not "good-bad" -- it's just bad bad. Don't watch it.

NOT RECOMMENDED.

On My Shelf: The Blues Brothers (1980)

I think Mr. Hall got a little offended when I told him that I thought the movie Blues Brothers (1980) was "an acquired taste". And I say that because, for me, it was an acquired taste. I did not grow up watching The Blues Brothers, and my whole experience of them was seeing them on an occasional Saturday Night Live clip show, and listening to somewhat derisive comments about those clips from my parents. Things to the effect of, "I don't know why people liked them. They're not even funny! They're just singing songs!"


But I have to say that, after watching this movie initially and not understanding why people liked it... I've slowly warmed to the movie.

THE PLOT: Jake Blues (John Belushi) is released from prison. He is picked up by his brother, Elwood Blues, (Dan Aykroyd) who takes him to visit a short-tempered old Nun (in charge of the orphanage they grew up in). She reveals that the orphanage is going to go out of business unless they pay several thousand dollars in back taxes in a matter of days. The brothers then visit the other person responsible for raising them -- an old janitor (Cab Calloway) who tells them they seriously need to get to church. They go to his recommended religious facility -- where Jake has a celestial vision that puts him and his brother on a mission to put their old band back together to raise money for the orphanage. They then go on a road trip to collect said band members, whether they want to be collected or not.


The Things that Initially Turned Me Off: First and foremost... I was (and, perhaps in some ways, still am) slightly confused by the whole concept of the entity, "The Blues Brothers." Clearly, Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi created these characters on SNL to be an outlet to a latent desire to be musical pop stars (rather than mere, boring old comedy superstars). They are passable musicians -- both can sing and (not really) dance. And... for some reason... people bought into this? And gave them enough millions of dollars to make a movie about these pseudo-characters?

"Dancing."Second of all, I didn't (and, in some ways, don't) find the Blues Brothers all that likeable as main characters. They are selfish criminals and leave complete chaos in their wake (literally).

If they were to walk past a bush, this would probably happen.

Not to mention, the fulfillment of their plan involves them blackmailing, tricking and cheating their former bandmates and friends to get the band back together. So, it's a movie about awful people, doing awful things, featuring fake musicians. What is the selling point, exactly?


Why I've Warmed to It: Okay. Mr. Hall grew up on this movie and likes to watch it, so I had the opportunity for repeated viewings -- and during those repeated viewings, I had to kind of get over the "fake musicians" and "They don't even sing the blues!" part. If you put that all aside -- this movie has several things going for it:

* Talented People Were Involved: We've got director John Landis, we've got Frank Oz, we've got Henry Gibson, we've got Carrie Fisher, we've got John Candy... And Dan Aykroyd. (This may be a little controversial... but while I buy Dan Aykroyd as the character he is playing, I'm not sure I buy John Belushi. Dan Aykroyd is Elwood Blues. John Belushi... is John Belushi speaking in a monotone. I'm not saying I hate him, I'm not saying he's TERRIBLE.... I'm just saying that his characterisation isn't super strong. But he and Dan Aykroyd play off each other well, and the film is so loose anyway, ultimately I don't think that hurts the film.) Regardless, though, I'd like to emphasize that I feel Dan Aykroyd gives a really funny, subtle performance, and I think credit is due.


* Music: This movie was an opportunity to showcase every famous musician that Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi liked -- from Aretha Franklin to Cab Calloway. Iconic performers get to give iconic performances of their iconic songs. This, clearly, is a good thing. Unless you, like, hate Ray Charles or something.

* Setting: The location, Chicago, is as much a character in this movie as The Blues Brothers. Clearly, the filmmakers knew the town quite well and did a good job of exploiting it and capturing its flavor. Granted, the Chicago of today doesn't quite feel like the grimy Chicago of late-70's-early-80's, but anyone familiar with the town is going to recognize the town in this movie.


* It's Pretty Funny. In many ways, you just have to accept that when it's all said and done, this is a vanity project. And, as in other vanity projects I've seen -- sometimes things happen that don't necessarily make sense, or aren't necessarily in keeping with the story or the characters (things happen that might not happen within the context of a really tight, well-written script). For instance, there are a few occurrences that beg the question -- are the Blues Brothers supposed to be really smart and cool -- or are they really, really dumb? It's unclear. In a tight script, this would be a problem -- but if you are able to accept this piece as a vanity project with a rather loose structure -- then, it's okay that things don't make sense, and you are free to find it funny.

These are funny guys, after all. Except when they're receiving
the key to the city of Chicago. Then they look like they're being
forced to provide evidence during the McCarthy hearings.* The Story / Morals: I'm not reneging on what I said previously about this being a story about bad people doing bad things. However, they are bad people doing bad things for the right reasons -- if that makes any sense at all. The Blues Brothers are, after all, ultimately "on a mission from God" to save an orphanage. In fact, this makes such a difference to the story as far as morals go that this film officially became a Vatican-approved movie. (I'm not even kidding). It's still got bad language and some rude implications here and there, but it's heart is in the right place.


TO SUM UP...
So -- funny do things happen, the music is great, there are some excellent performances (both acting and musically) and the Vatican approves. Does that make this a perfect film experience? No, but it definitely has a quirky charm to it, and with repeated viewings you notice subtle things that make it better and better. Additionally, after you get familiar with this movie, you realize that there are a lot of references to it in pop-culture (even former boy-band Hanson did a music video which is a direct reference to one of the biggest musical numbers in the film. Look close, and you'll find some guy who looks remarkably like Weird Al Yankovic spazzing out in the background.) The Blues Brothers is still mystifying in some ways, but overall a fun experience. And that is why I consider this movie...

RECOMMENDED(An Acquired Taste)

The Blues Brothers (1980)

I think Mr. Hall got a little offended when I told him that I thought the movie Blues Brothers (1980) was "an acquired taste". And I say that because, for me, it was an acquired taste. I did not grow up watching The Blues Brothers, and my whole experience of them was seeing them on an occasional Saturday Night Live clip show, and listening to somewhat derisive comments about those clips from my parents. Things to the effect of, "I don't know why people liked them. They're not even funny! They're just singing songs!"


But I have to say that, after watching this movie initially and not understanding why people liked it... I've slowly warmed to the movie.

THE PLOT: Jake Blues (John Belushi) is released from prison. He is picked up by his brother, Elwood Blues, (Dan Aykroyd) who takes him to visit a short-tempered old Nun (in charge of the orphanage they grew up in). She reveals that the orphanage is going to go out of business unless they pay several thousand dollars in back taxes in a matter of days. The brothers then visit the other person responsible for raising them -- an old janitor (Cab Calloway) who tells them they seriously need to get to church. They go to his recommended religious facility -- where Jake has a celestial vision that puts him and his brother on a mission to put their old band back together to raise money for the orphanage. They then go on a road trip to collect said band members, whether they want to be collected or not.


The Things that Initially Turned Me Off: First and foremost... I was (and, perhaps in some ways, still am) slightly confused by the whole concept of the entity, "The Blues Brothers." Clearly, Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi created these characters on SNL to be an outlet to a latent desire to be musical pop stars (rather than mere, boring old comedy superstars). They are passable musicians -- both can sing and (not really) dance. And... for some reason... people bought into this? And gave them enough millions of dollars to make a movie about these pseudo-characters?

"Dancing."Second of all, I didn't (and, in some ways, don't) find the Blues Brothers all that likeable as main characters. They are selfish criminals and leave complete chaos in their wake (literally).

If they were to walk past a bush, this would probably happen.

Not to mention, the fulfillment of their plan involves them blackmailing, tricking and cheating their former bandmates and friends to get the band back together. So, it's a movie about awful people, doing awful things, featuring fake musicians. What is the selling point, exactly?


Why I've Warmed to It: Okay. Mr. Hall grew up on this movie, so I had the opportunity for repeated viewings -- and during those repeated viewings, I had to kind of get over the "fake musicians" and "They don't even sing the blues!" part. If you put that all aside -- this movie has several things going for it:

* Talented People Were Involved: We've got director John Landis, we've got Frank Oz, we've got Henry Gibson, we've got Carrie Fisher, we've got John Candy... And Dan Aykroyd. (This may be a little controversial... but while I buy Dan Aykroyd as the character he is playing, I'm not sure I buy John Belushi. Dan Aykroyd is Elwood Blues. John Belushi... is John Belushi speaking in a monotone. They play off each other well, though, so ultimately it doesn't hurt the movie.) But, regardless, Dan Aykroyd gives a really funny, subtle performance, and I think credit is due.


* Music: This movie was an opportunity to showcase every famous musician that Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi liked -- from Aretha Franklin to Cab Calloway. Iconic performers get to give iconic performances of their iconic songs. This, clearly, is a good thing. Unless you, like, hate Ray Charles or something.

* Setting: The location, Chicago, is as much a character in this movie as The Blues Brothers. Clearly, the filmmakers knew the town quite well and did a good job of exploiting it and capturing its flavor. Granted, the Chicago of today doesn't quite feel like the grimy Chicago of late-70's-early-80's, but anyone familiar with the town is going to recognize the town in this movie.


* It's Pretty Funny. In many ways, you just have to accept that when it's all said and done, this is a vanity project. And, as in other vanity projects I've seen -- sometimes things happen that don't necessarily make sense, or aren't necessarily in keeping with the story or the characters (things happen that might not happen within the context of a really tight, well-written script). For instance, there are a few occurrences that beg the question -- are the Blues Brothers supposed to be really dumb, or are they supposed to be really smart and cool? It's unclear. In a tight script, this would be a problem -- but if you are able to accept this piece as a vanity project with a rather loose structure -- then, it's okay that things don't make sense, and you are free to find it funny.
These are kind of funny guys, after all. And they like milk!* The Story / Morals: I'm not reneging on what I said previously about this being a story about bad people doing bad things. However, they are bad people doing bad things for the right reasons -- if that makes any sense at all. The Blues Brothers are, after all, ultimately "on a mission from God" to save an orphanage. In fact, this makes such a difference to the story as far as morals go that this film officially became a Vatican-approved movie. (I'm not even kidding). It's still got bad language and some rude implications here and there, but it's heart is in the right place.


TO SUM UP...
So -- funny do things happen, the music is great, there are some excellent performances (both acting and musically) and the Vatican approves. Does that make this a perfect film experience? No, but it definitely has a quirky charm to it, and with repeated viewings you notice subtle things that make it better and better. Additionally, after you get familiar with this movie, you realize that there are a lot of references to it in pop-culture (even former boy-band Hanson did a music video which is a direct reference to one of the biggest musical numbers in the film. Look close, and you'll find some guy who looks remarkably like Weird Al Yankovic spazzing out in the background.) The Blues Brothers is still mystifying in some ways, but overall a fun experience. And that is why I consider this movie...

RECOMMENDED(An Acquired Taste)

On My Shelf: Nukie (1987)

I've seen a lot of bad movies, so it's very rare for me to say something like, "This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen."

But this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. 


Plot: Nukie and his brother Niko are star children of some nature, flying around the universe. Niko screws around and flies too close to the Earth, and he and Nukie get separated -- Niko landing somewhere that American scientists can pick him up, and Nukie landing somewhere in the African bush. Niko is inexplicably tortured by the scientists (they do things like burn his eyes with lasers. What possible scientific purpose could that serve, other than torturing him?) and spends the rest of the movie yelling, "Nukie! Nukie! Where are you?" and Nukie spends the rest of the movie wandering around the African bush, yelling, "Nico! Nico, where are you?" There's also some stock footage. But the bulk of this movie is Nukie wandering through the African bush with a runny nose.
I couldn't decide whether Nukie looked more like a sentient pile of
crap, or a dried-out, dead monkey.I won't say that there are zero surprises in this movie. There's a scene where Nukie makes music and fireworks happen, somehow. There's a scene when Nukie talks to a monkey. And there's a scene when Nico makes one of the scientists think that he (the scientist) is a clown.
There's also a scene where Nukie gets shot in the stomach
with tranquilizer darts. That was kind of a surprise.But honestly, the bulk of this movie is largely just boring. The human plots, such as they were (something about the scientists and the computer learning to have humanity -- and I honestly don't know what the heck was going on in that African village) made no sense. Luckily, only about 10% of the movie was composed of the human plots -- the things I mentioned here were the highlights. The rest of the film -- Nico yells, "Nukie!" and Nukie yells, "Nico!" and one lies on a table, and the other wanders through fields -- and that's the movie for you. I'm not even kidding; most of this movie is just one character wandering around and calling for another character. 
This poster is 100% more exciting than the
actual film.We reached a point where we were just fast-forwarding through scenes of nothing so that we could get to the end faster. It was a hideously dull film, lacking any of the charm, fun, or good special effects that were the hallmark of the movie it ripped off (E.T.). Heck, this movie made Mac and Me look good by comparison. It had zero redeeming qualities.
In the end, it's not even a good bad movie. 
(Extremely)NOT RECOMMENDED