Jamie Alexandre Hall's Blog, page 8
January 17, 2017
Wayne's World (1992)... Meandering Mess
Wayne's World is a very odd film... in that it's a low-brow comedy with weird pacing and tone issues, that nevertheless has a much better reputation than it deserves. On RottenTomatoes.com (which we all know is a wholly accurate gauge of how good a film is) it has an 85% -- a ridiculously high score for the subject matter. Don't get me wrong: as a child watching Saturday Night Live in the late-80's-early-90's, I thought the source material was hilarious.
This, ideally, would have been a video... but SNL is pretty
careful about not letting people watch their old material.
(Probably because of the sad comparison that could
be drawn with the modern day material.)So, as a kid, I was pretty excited to see the movie Wayne's World. And when we finally saw it, I was like... What the heck is this?
The Story (if you can call it that): Wayne and his friend Garth (and a handful of random other guys whose personalities are never explored) run the public access TV show Wayne's World out of his Mom's basement. A sleazy TV executive gets wind of the show and decides to exploit them. Wayne meets a fun Asian rock singer girl who he wants to date. Wayne and Garth go out to eat, ride around in a car, talk to people, play street hockey, look at things at stores... etc. etc. In short, they waste a lot of time. Then, there are some endings.
Now, I don't have a problem with low-brow comedies. Nor do I have a problem with movies that play with the conventions of film, break the 4th wall, and have an unconventional structure.... if it's done well. And there are moments that do it well in this movie -- moments with good pacing and good punchlines. Those are the moments that are most like what Mike Myers-brand comedy would become in films like Austin Powers... like this highly self-aware moment, for example:
But for the most part... this movie meanders in a highly unsatisfactory fashion. For instance, one of the opening segments of the film is Wayne and his friends riding in a car and singing Bohemian Rhapsody.
Seriously. It's a very-long-feeling scene and that's all that happens until they get where they are going. Four guys (or five, I forget. It doesn't matter. The others don't have personalities) singing along with a fun song in a car. They don't do wacky stuff or develop their personalities or advance the story. They just sing along with a song. Oh, they do stop and pick up one of their friends. (...Whose personality is that he's sick from partying too much. This develops into a hilarious joke where.... JUST KIDDING! He just rides in the car with the others and sings along with the song. His being sick never pays off.)
Ultimately, this movie has two main problems: its pacing, and the fact that it's just not funny enough. I don't understand why people like this movie. It's dull. There are too many pauses, too much empty air, and things that aren't punchlines played as punchlines. I am going to take a stand here and say that the only reason Wayne's World has 85% fresh on RottenTomatoes is that people remember the characters from SNL fondly and can't actually remember what happens in the movie.
I'm not saying it's completely terrible -- it does have moments. I would say that if you happened to be flipping through the channels, and watched this for a while, it would be okay. But as for putting it on your shelf? Not at all necessary.
NOT RECOMMENDED.
This, ideally, would have been a video... but SNL is prettycareful about not letting people watch their old material.
(Probably because of the sad comparison that could
be drawn with the modern day material.)So, as a kid, I was pretty excited to see the movie Wayne's World. And when we finally saw it, I was like... What the heck is this?
The Story (if you can call it that): Wayne and his friend Garth (and a handful of random other guys whose personalities are never explored) run the public access TV show Wayne's World out of his Mom's basement. A sleazy TV executive gets wind of the show and decides to exploit them. Wayne meets a fun Asian rock singer girl who he wants to date. Wayne and Garth go out to eat, ride around in a car, talk to people, play street hockey, look at things at stores... etc. etc. In short, they waste a lot of time. Then, there are some endings.
Now, I don't have a problem with low-brow comedies. Nor do I have a problem with movies that play with the conventions of film, break the 4th wall, and have an unconventional structure.... if it's done well. And there are moments that do it well in this movie -- moments with good pacing and good punchlines. Those are the moments that are most like what Mike Myers-brand comedy would become in films like Austin Powers... like this highly self-aware moment, for example:
But for the most part... this movie meanders in a highly unsatisfactory fashion. For instance, one of the opening segments of the film is Wayne and his friends riding in a car and singing Bohemian Rhapsody.
Seriously. It's a very-long-feeling scene and that's all that happens until they get where they are going. Four guys (or five, I forget. It doesn't matter. The others don't have personalities) singing along with a fun song in a car. They don't do wacky stuff or develop their personalities or advance the story. They just sing along with a song. Oh, they do stop and pick up one of their friends. (...Whose personality is that he's sick from partying too much. This develops into a hilarious joke where.... JUST KIDDING! He just rides in the car with the others and sings along with the song. His being sick never pays off.)
Ultimately, this movie has two main problems: its pacing, and the fact that it's just not funny enough. I don't understand why people like this movie. It's dull. There are too many pauses, too much empty air, and things that aren't punchlines played as punchlines. I am going to take a stand here and say that the only reason Wayne's World has 85% fresh on RottenTomatoes is that people remember the characters from SNL fondly and can't actually remember what happens in the movie.
I'm not saying it's completely terrible -- it does have moments. I would say that if you happened to be flipping through the channels, and watched this for a while, it would be okay. But as for putting it on your shelf? Not at all necessary.
NOT RECOMMENDED.
January 10, 2017
Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo (1977)... is just about what you'd expect.
Happy New Year! I watched Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo! It was terrible!
Yes, I do have a copy of Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo on my shelf (because it came in a four-movie set with the original, which was the only one I actually wanted). Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo is possibly the most-referenced of the "Herbie" movies -- with second place going to "Herbie Goes Bananas" in the "ridiculous title" list.
I have a fondness for the original Herbie film, The Love Bug. (You know what? I'm not even sure why Herbie is called "The Love Bug" -- honestly, it seems like a deceitful title to attract randy hippies, who would then be too stoned and confused to ask for their money back.) I'm not even sure why I like the original film that much -- it's very strange. But, possibly because I didn't see them until I was an adult -- I can tell you that the Herbie sequels are really bad.
The Plot: For some reason, it's been twelve years since our hero, Dean Jones, has raced in his "alive" Volkswagon Bug, Herbie -- and for some reason, during that twelve years, his sidekick turned from Buddy Hackett into Don Knotts. He is making his racing comeback in a race from Paris to Monte Carlo. Meanwhile, in the second plot of the movie, a famous diamond was heisted from a Paris museum -- and the bumbling thieves hide the diamond in Herbie's gas tank! And in the third plot -- Herbie falls in love with another car, and causes problems and hijinx by trying to escape from his friends in order to see "her" -- which doesn't sit very well with the other car's driver, who is (of course) a female racing driver, competing against Dean Jones. I won't spoil the ending, but I will say it ends just about the way you'd expect in a light-hearted romp written for babies -- i.e. don't come here expecting any shocks or surprises. Or laughs. Or amusement.
This is far happier than you will look after watching this movie.
... All right. I'll say it again. I like the original movie, The Love Bug. It's okay. It has some charming moments. But the sequels are pretty much embarrassing and terrible. And uninspired. And dull. And embarrassing. And terrible. This isn't even a good "bad" movie.
Why, oh why, did they think a car falling in love with another car would be a great plot element, out of which would come so much humor? Much less the diamond heist. Couldn't they think of enough things for our main characters to do without introducing a contrived thing like that? Couldn't Don Knotts fall down some stairs or something?
Cars in love. It's every bit as exciting as this looks.And then there were all these things they just didn't bother to explain. Like WHY hasn't Dean Jones raced in twelve years? They repeatedly say he hasn't raced in twelve years -- but WHY NOT? And what happened to the woman he was going to marry at the end of the first movie? Did they get married? Did they split up? Did she die? And what happened to his best friend, Buddy Hackett? Why was he replaced with Don Knotts? (Okay, I'd probably give them a mulligan on that one, since actors sometimes have to change and aren't available and so on and so forth... but, you know, if they had just explained one of those other points, I wouldn't be questioning this one!)
And characters? The woman was a shrill nightmare who screeched constantly, accusing Dean Jones of "not wanting women in racing"every time he tried to talk to her (even about totally unrelated topics). Seemed to me like she had just a bit too much of a chip on her shoulder to be a really nice, likeable character. The police characters and the jewel heisters were all right, but they weren't given anything particularly funny to do.
And I won't say "far-fetched" (because we're talking about a series of movies about a car that came to life and can fly if he wants to) ... but, really. I think I've talked before about suspension of disbelief, and how -- if there's a really big suspension you're asking me to make in order to accept the premise of your movie -- you should probably get the small points accurate, or else they're going to take me right out of the story.
FOR INSTANCE -- there is a point where Herbie's "face" gets dirty, and yet he's trying to impress his "girlfriend" -- so he drives across this grassy, flowered, median area in Paris and "washes his face" in a fountain. I've already accepted so many impossible things with this scene that when I saw Herbie driving through a busy street and across that manicured, flowered median area into that fountain, I just found it impossible to believe that there was no policeman or little Frenchman running after him, yelling at him not to drive on the lawn, over the flowers, or into the fountain. I just couldn't buy it. And it took me right out of the movie. (In fact, it took me so far out of the movie that I actually found myself in the other room, doing laundry. Laundry is quite preferable to watching this film.)
"You're thinking that I should be doing laundry because I'm a woman,
aren't you? AREN'T YOU?!!" The best parts of the film were probably the one or two times they let Don Knotts be funny. Oh, and Dean Jones is pretty likeable. That's about it. Other than that, unless you're a desperate Herbie-completionist, please skip this one.
But, do read this blog post about the last unrestored Herbie (the one from this movie, actually), which was on sale on eBay a couple years ago. Pretty interesting!
Not Shelf-Recommended.
Yes, I do have a copy of Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo on my shelf (because it came in a four-movie set with the original, which was the only one I actually wanted). Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo is possibly the most-referenced of the "Herbie" movies -- with second place going to "Herbie Goes Bananas" in the "ridiculous title" list.
I have a fondness for the original Herbie film, The Love Bug. (You know what? I'm not even sure why Herbie is called "The Love Bug" -- honestly, it seems like a deceitful title to attract randy hippies, who would then be too stoned and confused to ask for their money back.) I'm not even sure why I like the original film that much -- it's very strange. But, possibly because I didn't see them until I was an adult -- I can tell you that the Herbie sequels are really bad.
The Plot: For some reason, it's been twelve years since our hero, Dean Jones, has raced in his "alive" Volkswagon Bug, Herbie -- and for some reason, during that twelve years, his sidekick turned from Buddy Hackett into Don Knotts. He is making his racing comeback in a race from Paris to Monte Carlo. Meanwhile, in the second plot of the movie, a famous diamond was heisted from a Paris museum -- and the bumbling thieves hide the diamond in Herbie's gas tank! And in the third plot -- Herbie falls in love with another car, and causes problems and hijinx by trying to escape from his friends in order to see "her" -- which doesn't sit very well with the other car's driver, who is (of course) a female racing driver, competing against Dean Jones. I won't spoil the ending, but I will say it ends just about the way you'd expect in a light-hearted romp written for babies -- i.e. don't come here expecting any shocks or surprises. Or laughs. Or amusement.
This is far happier than you will look after watching this movie.... All right. I'll say it again. I like the original movie, The Love Bug. It's okay. It has some charming moments. But the sequels are pretty much embarrassing and terrible. And uninspired. And dull. And embarrassing. And terrible. This isn't even a good "bad" movie.
Why, oh why, did they think a car falling in love with another car would be a great plot element, out of which would come so much humor? Much less the diamond heist. Couldn't they think of enough things for our main characters to do without introducing a contrived thing like that? Couldn't Don Knotts fall down some stairs or something?
Cars in love. It's every bit as exciting as this looks.And then there were all these things they just didn't bother to explain. Like WHY hasn't Dean Jones raced in twelve years? They repeatedly say he hasn't raced in twelve years -- but WHY NOT? And what happened to the woman he was going to marry at the end of the first movie? Did they get married? Did they split up? Did she die? And what happened to his best friend, Buddy Hackett? Why was he replaced with Don Knotts? (Okay, I'd probably give them a mulligan on that one, since actors sometimes have to change and aren't available and so on and so forth... but, you know, if they had just explained one of those other points, I wouldn't be questioning this one!)And characters? The woman was a shrill nightmare who screeched constantly, accusing Dean Jones of "not wanting women in racing"every time he tried to talk to her (even about totally unrelated topics). Seemed to me like she had just a bit too much of a chip on her shoulder to be a really nice, likeable character. The police characters and the jewel heisters were all right, but they weren't given anything particularly funny to do.
And I won't say "far-fetched" (because we're talking about a series of movies about a car that came to life and can fly if he wants to) ... but, really. I think I've talked before about suspension of disbelief, and how -- if there's a really big suspension you're asking me to make in order to accept the premise of your movie -- you should probably get the small points accurate, or else they're going to take me right out of the story.
FOR INSTANCE -- there is a point where Herbie's "face" gets dirty, and yet he's trying to impress his "girlfriend" -- so he drives across this grassy, flowered, median area in Paris and "washes his face" in a fountain. I've already accepted so many impossible things with this scene that when I saw Herbie driving through a busy street and across that manicured, flowered median area into that fountain, I just found it impossible to believe that there was no policeman or little Frenchman running after him, yelling at him not to drive on the lawn, over the flowers, or into the fountain. I just couldn't buy it. And it took me right out of the movie. (In fact, it took me so far out of the movie that I actually found myself in the other room, doing laundry. Laundry is quite preferable to watching this film.)
"You're thinking that I should be doing laundry because I'm a woman,aren't you? AREN'T YOU?!!" The best parts of the film were probably the one or two times they let Don Knotts be funny. Oh, and Dean Jones is pretty likeable. That's about it. Other than that, unless you're a desperate Herbie-completionist, please skip this one.
But, do read this blog post about the last unrestored Herbie (the one from this movie, actually), which was on sale on eBay a couple years ago. Pretty interesting!
Not Shelf-Recommended.
December 24, 2016
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964)... Is an Excellent Terrible Movie.
It's very easy to say that Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a bad film. In fact, it's been used by just about every "Bad Movie Riffing" establishment out there -- Mystery Science Theater 3000, Cinematic Titanic, Rifftrax, etc. etc. But I'm going to come right out and say it: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians deserves a little more consideration than just being outright dismissed as a bad film.
IMDb summarizes it, "The Martians kidnap Santa Claus because there is nobody on Mars to give their children presents," but there's a little more to it than that. Martian children, due to their regimented lifestyles, have forgotten how to have fun and actually be children -- so the Martian elder, Chochem, recommends the Martian leaders to go to earth and get Santa to bring the spirit of Christmas to Mars. (So, they kidnap him).
From one look at this film, from the concept to and the (in most copies) washed-out colors to the awful production values, and you will probably be like, "This looks terrible! What a crappy movie and what a stupid concept!"
Not proving you wrong yet.I'll give you that it's a silly concept, but it's so easy to look at the bad production values and hammy acting and simply dismiss the movie outright. You probably think I'm crazy that I'm not telling you to do just that, but I think we need to look at a couple other things --
1. The ActingThe acting is kind of over-the-top in this film... but it's not bad acting, for the most part. It's stage acting. They mostly went with stage actors in this film -- so there are plenty of over-expressive faces and bodily movements that would actually look perfectly reasonable on a stage from 50-100 feet away. In fact, the guy who plays Droppo ("the laziest man on Mars") is an Emmy AND Tony-award-winning actor. If you watch this film with an uncritical eye, you'll find that the actors are relatively sincere and committed in in their performances. (I'm not saying everybody's great... but the majority of the actors are at least entertaining!)
Tony. Award. Winning.2. The StoryThe story is silly... but no sillier than The Nightmare Before Christmas or Jingle All the Way, both of which have loyal followings. This is a good example of the whole "believable vs. realistic" thing I've talked about upon occasion. No, it's not in the least realistic -- but I want to say that it's believable, in the same way that you believe that Wyle E. Coyote has a moment after stepping off a cliff into mid-air when he can turn around and react before he starts falling. This film also has at least a degree of actual charm.
(To repeat: Not realistic -- believable).In fact, I want to say that the main problem with this movie are the production values. If you had put the kind of cash into this movie that was put into, say, Santa Claus: The Movie -- I'd almost go as far as to say that this would be on everybody's "Christmas classic" shelf along with White Christmas and Home Alone. Heck, I'd hang out with the Martians any day over the McAllister family.
The main evil Martian is 100% more likeable, relatable and
interesting than any of Kevin McAllister's family members.Okay, maybe not, but it would at least get a lot more respect than it does. "If it's so good, then," you demand, "WHY is this movie featured on so many 'bad movie riffing' shows?!"
Three main reasons. One, like I said, it's got hammy acting and bad production values, which makes it an easy target. Second, it's public domain, so it's FREE USE. Third -- it's an entertaining, harmless film! Being free, and being bad, are not enough to get you used by those type of shows, because you still have to be watchable. Know how many times the PD Christmas horror film Don't Open Till Christmas (1984) has been used on MST3k, Rifftrax or Cinematic Titanic? ZERO, and you know why? In addition to having bad production values, it's un-watchably dull (with the possible exceptions of a few death scenes that are not at all exciting enough to redeem the rest of it) and has no likeable or interesting characters.
The complete movie... in vivid, cleaned-up color!
...Unlike Santa Claus Conquers the Martians! This is an ideal holiday movie to watch with popcorn, cocoa and a group of friends who like laughing and making fun of movies. Ideal! And if you don't happen to have a group of friends available...
Bootleg!
Just watch this bootleg of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode that features it. (It's not in vivid color -- it's in the original, faded brown, but it's one of MST3k's best). It's like watching it with a roomful of your best and funniest friends. It's recommended!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
IMDb summarizes it, "The Martians kidnap Santa Claus because there is nobody on Mars to give their children presents," but there's a little more to it than that. Martian children, due to their regimented lifestyles, have forgotten how to have fun and actually be children -- so the Martian elder, Chochem, recommends the Martian leaders to go to earth and get Santa to bring the spirit of Christmas to Mars. (So, they kidnap him).From one look at this film, from the concept to and the (in most copies) washed-out colors to the awful production values, and you will probably be like, "This looks terrible! What a crappy movie and what a stupid concept!"
Not proving you wrong yet.I'll give you that it's a silly concept, but it's so easy to look at the bad production values and hammy acting and simply dismiss the movie outright. You probably think I'm crazy that I'm not telling you to do just that, but I think we need to look at a couple other things -- 1. The ActingThe acting is kind of over-the-top in this film... but it's not bad acting, for the most part. It's stage acting. They mostly went with stage actors in this film -- so there are plenty of over-expressive faces and bodily movements that would actually look perfectly reasonable on a stage from 50-100 feet away. In fact, the guy who plays Droppo ("the laziest man on Mars") is an Emmy AND Tony-award-winning actor. If you watch this film with an uncritical eye, you'll find that the actors are relatively sincere and committed in in their performances. (I'm not saying everybody's great... but the majority of the actors are at least entertaining!)
Tony. Award. Winning.2. The StoryThe story is silly... but no sillier than The Nightmare Before Christmas or Jingle All the Way, both of which have loyal followings. This is a good example of the whole "believable vs. realistic" thing I've talked about upon occasion. No, it's not in the least realistic -- but I want to say that it's believable, in the same way that you believe that Wyle E. Coyote has a moment after stepping off a cliff into mid-air when he can turn around and react before he starts falling. This film also has at least a degree of actual charm.
(To repeat: Not realistic -- believable).In fact, I want to say that the main problem with this movie are the production values. If you had put the kind of cash into this movie that was put into, say, Santa Claus: The Movie -- I'd almost go as far as to say that this would be on everybody's "Christmas classic" shelf along with White Christmas and Home Alone. Heck, I'd hang out with the Martians any day over the McAllister family. 
The main evil Martian is 100% more likeable, relatable and interesting than any of Kevin McAllister's family members.Okay, maybe not, but it would at least get a lot more respect than it does. "If it's so good, then," you demand, "WHY is this movie featured on so many 'bad movie riffing' shows?!"
Three main reasons. One, like I said, it's got hammy acting and bad production values, which makes it an easy target. Second, it's public domain, so it's FREE USE. Third -- it's an entertaining, harmless film! Being free, and being bad, are not enough to get you used by those type of shows, because you still have to be watchable. Know how many times the PD Christmas horror film Don't Open Till Christmas (1984) has been used on MST3k, Rifftrax or Cinematic Titanic? ZERO, and you know why? In addition to having bad production values, it's un-watchably dull (with the possible exceptions of a few death scenes that are not at all exciting enough to redeem the rest of it) and has no likeable or interesting characters.
The complete movie... in vivid, cleaned-up color!
...Unlike Santa Claus Conquers the Martians! This is an ideal holiday movie to watch with popcorn, cocoa and a group of friends who like laughing and making fun of movies. Ideal! And if you don't happen to have a group of friends available...
Bootleg!
Just watch this bootleg of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode that features it. (It's not in vivid color -- it's in the original, faded brown, but it's one of MST3k's best). It's like watching it with a roomful of your best and funniest friends. It's recommended!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
December 21, 2016
Elf (2003)...Stuck Between Two Worlds
The movie "Elf" has a very good reputation amongst my generation, and I'm not going to say that this is a terrible movie and you should all be ashamed of yourselves... Not by any means. This might be my favorite Will Ferrell movie, and (more or less) has a good story. There are many things that I like about it... although I have one main problem with this movie. And we'll get into that shortly.
IMDb: After inadvertently wreaking havoc on the elf community due to his ungainly size, a man raised as an elf at the North Pole is sent to the U.S. in search of his true identity.
Here are things that I like about the movie "Elf"... and oddly, the first two are just big ol' "pop culture references", the type of thing I usually abhor (when it's done cheaply, and poorly. To see what I mean by that, watch any episode of The Family Guy or any modern episode of The Simpsons).
Like anything, a pop culture reference is relatively acceptable... if done well. (And with the full knowledge that it will likely appeal [and make sense] to only one generation. If you're trying to do comedy for the ages... don't fill it with pop culture references! References to Henry Aldrich doubtlessly had people rolling in the aisles in 1945... But if I got anything more than a blank expression from you with that particular pop-culture reference, I will be wholly shocked. Pop culture references do not make "for the ages" comedy.) So, look for parts of Elf to resonate slightly less with your children -- and slightly less again, with your grandchildren.
But anyway, I like (most of) the casting, the design, and the majority of the story.
1. The Casting: Bob Newhart.
His inclusion is what sold me on this movie in the first few seconds. I mean, who doesn't love Bob Newhart? Yes, his inclusion is a kind of cheap pop culture reference in itself, but I don't think this particular one is that bad -- it gets a pass, because Mr. Newhart's role works. The role doesn't exist for the reference -- the reference exists in spite of the role. Little kids of the generation following the next won't be like, "Who is that guy? Why is he so prominently featured?" ... anymore than they ask that question of the (meaningless to the current generation) narrator in Frosty the Snowman. (I'm just hazarding a guess that most little kids have no idea who Jimmy Durante is. Correct me if I'm wrong!)
2. The Design: The Depiction of the North Pole
I find this endlessly delightful because it's the Rankin-Bass North Pole. Again, it's a pop culture reference -- clearly, people who were raised on Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (1964) designed the North Pole in this film. But a lot of thought and careful design was put into this segment, and that's what makes it a good pop culture reference.
Top, Rudolph going away on an iceberg.
Bottom, Buddy the Elf going away on an iceberg.Not to mention that other parts of the design were lovely as well -- the parts that had nothing to do with Rankin Bass. The Christmas decorations that Buddy the Elf provides wherever he goes are part of what make this movie so visually appealing.
3. The Casting (II): Will Ferrell
In a recent Comedians in Cars, Getting Coffee, Jerry Seinfeld was interviewing Will Ferrell and pointed out that Will Ferrell's entire career is predicated on the fact that he looks differently from how he acts. And if you think about it... it's true! The problem is, it doesn't always work -- as in movies like Talladega Nights, or Kicking and Screaming -- the setting isn't quite the perfect counterpoint to his looks, and so it doesn't work as well. But in this film, it does work. He's a full-grown, fully masculinized man -- who acts like a childlike innocent, and it works because of that fact.
It also doesn't work in Semi-Pro... Basically, about 75% of
Will Ferrell movies, it doesn't work. Sorry, Buddy.4. The Casting (III): James Caan
Casting James Caan as the "Dad" in this movie was a really peculiar choice. In fact, so much so, that I almost included him on the list of the things that didn't work. They could have gone with somebody who just came across as "grumpy old Dad" (i.e. your average, garden variety Charles Grodin) but no, they went with a person who was less likely to be cast as "Grumpy Old Dad" than Christopher Walken; he comes across as violent, angry... borderline psychotic. James Caan's performance is just so weirdly jarring (several times he looks like he's totally ready to jam a pen into Buddy's eye and throw him down a flight of stairs)... that it works, in a very weird kind of way. I'm going to call this subversion of expectations purposeful and call it a "good" choice, because it does make the role much more memorable and interesting.
"I could rip that guy's throat out, no problem."
IMDb: After inadvertently wreaking havoc on the elf community due to his ungainly size, a man raised as an elf at the North Pole is sent to the U.S. in search of his true identity.
Here are things that I like about the movie "Elf"... and oddly, the first two are just big ol' "pop culture references", the type of thing I usually abhor (when it's done cheaply, and poorly. To see what I mean by that, watch any episode of The Family Guy or any modern episode of The Simpsons).
Like anything, a pop culture reference is relatively acceptable... if done well. (And with the full knowledge that it will likely appeal [and make sense] to only one generation. If you're trying to do comedy for the ages... don't fill it with pop culture references! References to Henry Aldrich doubtlessly had people rolling in the aisles in 1945... But if I got anything more than a blank expression from you with that particular pop-culture reference, I will be wholly shocked. Pop culture references do not make "for the ages" comedy.) So, look for parts of Elf to resonate slightly less with your children -- and slightly less again, with your grandchildren.
But anyway, I like (most of) the casting, the design, and the majority of the story.
1. The Casting: Bob Newhart.
His inclusion is what sold me on this movie in the first few seconds. I mean, who doesn't love Bob Newhart? Yes, his inclusion is a kind of cheap pop culture reference in itself, but I don't think this particular one is that bad -- it gets a pass, because Mr. Newhart's role works. The role doesn't exist for the reference -- the reference exists in spite of the role. Little kids of the generation following the next won't be like, "Who is that guy? Why is he so prominently featured?" ... anymore than they ask that question of the (meaningless to the current generation) narrator in Frosty the Snowman. (I'm just hazarding a guess that most little kids have no idea who Jimmy Durante is. Correct me if I'm wrong!)
2. The Design: The Depiction of the North Pole
I find this endlessly delightful because it's the Rankin-Bass North Pole. Again, it's a pop culture reference -- clearly, people who were raised on Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (1964) designed the North Pole in this film. But a lot of thought and careful design was put into this segment, and that's what makes it a good pop culture reference.
Top, Rudolph going away on an iceberg. Bottom, Buddy the Elf going away on an iceberg.Not to mention that other parts of the design were lovely as well -- the parts that had nothing to do with Rankin Bass. The Christmas decorations that Buddy the Elf provides wherever he goes are part of what make this movie so visually appealing.
3. The Casting (II): Will Ferrell
In a recent Comedians in Cars, Getting Coffee, Jerry Seinfeld was interviewing Will Ferrell and pointed out that Will Ferrell's entire career is predicated on the fact that he looks differently from how he acts. And if you think about it... it's true! The problem is, it doesn't always work -- as in movies like Talladega Nights, or Kicking and Screaming -- the setting isn't quite the perfect counterpoint to his looks, and so it doesn't work as well. But in this film, it does work. He's a full-grown, fully masculinized man -- who acts like a childlike innocent, and it works because of that fact.
It also doesn't work in Semi-Pro... Basically, about 75% of Will Ferrell movies, it doesn't work. Sorry, Buddy.4. The Casting (III): James Caan
Casting James Caan as the "Dad" in this movie was a really peculiar choice. In fact, so much so, that I almost included him on the list of the things that didn't work. They could have gone with somebody who just came across as "grumpy old Dad" (i.e. your average, garden variety Charles Grodin) but no, they went with a person who was less likely to be cast as "Grumpy Old Dad" than Christopher Walken; he comes across as violent, angry... borderline psychotic. James Caan's performance is just so weirdly jarring (several times he looks like he's totally ready to jam a pen into Buddy's eye and throw him down a flight of stairs)... that it works, in a very weird kind of way. I'm going to call this subversion of expectations purposeful and call it a "good" choice, because it does make the role much more memorable and interesting.
"I could rip that guy's throat out, no problem."
Off the Shelf: Rogue One (2016)... AN ENTIRELY TOO LONG, SPOILERIFIC REVIEW
There are a billion spoilers in this review. Just warning you. But the WORST spoilers will be in pink. So if you haven't seen it, just skip those parts!
I had been kind of excited about seeing Rogue One. It was supposed to be the first Star Wars spin-off -- i.e. a film starring none of the original or prequel main characters. One would think that it would have to be supported by the weight of the storytelling, and give us some bright new characters...
One would think.
Okay, so, I knew in advance that it was about the people who steal the original Death Star plan so that the original film (A New Hope) can take place. That's your basic plot right there. But here's the expanded plot:
Jyn witnesses her mother killed and her father taken away so that he could do some contractor work for the Empire. Forest Whittaker saves her. FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, Jyn is in prison for some unspecified reason (and no, we don't really ever find out what she's been doing for the past fifteen years, except apparently learning some fighting techniques). Some rebels rescue her -- for some unspecified reason, maybe because they somehow know that she's the daughter of the guy still doing contractor work for the Empire. She's shuffled around until she goes to the planet Jedha and meets up with Forest Whittaker, who says he's sorry he abandoned her a couple years back. Then he shows her a video of her Dad stating that there's a vague way to blow up the Death Star. Then the Death Star flies over and blows the WHOLE PLACE UP, just for fun. Jyn just escapes with some new friends (Blind Guy With Stick and Guy With Big Gun, not to mention Pilot Who Wears Goggles) while Forest Whittaker stays to die (for unclear reasons. Maybe because he's got big, clunky metal feet and can't run fast?)
So, they go to meet up with the Rebellion folks, who are pretty indecisive. They won't do anything, so Jyn and her group of new pals decide to go and pay a visit to her Dad on Always-Raining planet to get more detailed plans on how to blow up the Death Star. They arrive just in time to see Dad die. But, luckily, he just has time to say where the Death Star plans are kept. So they then drive to Always-Tropical planet and have some random hijinks as they attempt to find the floppy disc that the plans are stored on. Then, the bad guys close the atmosphere's airlock so that the good guys can't fly through or upload things (because, the filmmakers clearly wanted an homage to the greatest of all Star Wars movies, Spaceballs)...
...but then that's easily taken care of. Then there are some more hijinx as they attempt to upload the Death Star plans to the first Rebellion ship they see (oh, did I mention that the Rebellion finally decided to fight? You know, because they heard that somebody had already started fighting. Very brave of them.) And then they get it uploaded. And everyone blows up. End of movie.
Okay.
I've got several problems with this movie, but here is my main problem with this movie:
This is a movie with entirely new characters. AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NEW CHARACTERS.
Here are our new characters:
JYN ERSO
As I said, Jyn was the daughter of the guy who designed the Death Star. This much we gathered from the trailer. But what has she been doing for all the time that she spent on her own? And what's her personality like? WHO KNOWS? Apparently the filmmakers figured that because she's only appearing in this one movie, we don't need to actually know anything about her. She has no character arc and her motivations are vague at best. I think Jyn would have been more interesting if she had actually gone with her father and the Empire forced her to be raised as a loyal Empire subject, and she only got through it by being really cynical and self-centered -- and then she falls into the Rebellion plot, and learns about self-sacrifice and goodness.... As it is, the self-sacrifice that happens in this movie kind of comes out of nowhere. A huge disappointment. (This is getting to be my mantra.... but I don't blame the actress. Nothing was written for her to do).
GALEN ERSO
This is the guy who designed the Death Star. He is played by the actor with the best name, Mads Mikkelson (above). I didn't even bother to look up a picture of him in costume, because he isn't given anything to do in this movie. He is kind of sad when his wife dies, and kind of sad when he himself dies. And that's it.
CASSIAN ANDOR
I had to look up this character's name because I couldn't remember it. This delicate, dainty little man is, OSTENSIBLY, our lead male character. He has no personality and no backstory (except for some familial "losses" that we are told about but never see, and the fact that he's been fighting for the rebels for a long time). He has an introductory scene in which he kills some random person, which for the rest of the film confused me into thinking that he was going to betray the good guys in the end -- which he did not. (I guess that was supposed to be his Han-Shot-First moment, but it just really muddied the waters). I was, and am, terribly confused by the casting of this character. I seriously kept waiting for the real main male lead to show up, because I couldn't believe this was him. I guess, if you're going to have a "strong female lead" you can't also have strong male leads, in somebody's mind. Why can't both sexes be strong together? Doesn't that seem fair? But no. He was pretty limp. He was supposed to be the "Han Solo-type" -- except that he had about as much machismo as Bret from the Flight of the Conchords . And zero charisma. (Bret has much more charisma. But he's also allowed to have a personality, as pictured below.)
Bret!
K2SO
We get more backstory and personality from the stupid "C3P0-type" robot than from practically any other character. He used to be an Empire robot, you see, but the Rebellion captured and reprogrammed him. So now he's just a jerk. So, there you have it! That's all you need to make a character, and they squander it on this guy! What did we need him for? Nothing that couldn't have been taken care of by someone else. He was in this movie because Disney said there had to be a funny robot in this movie. (For the kids).
BODHI ROOK
I also had to look up this guy's name. Another beta-male with no backstory. He defected from the Empire and he wears goggles, and can pilot a ship (although I'm not sure we ever actually see him piloting a ship -- he mostly works on radio communications). I kept confusing him and our main lead guy because they were too physically similar, (which seemed like another weird call on the filmmaker's part. They usually know that you don't cast people who look too much alike unless you're making a point about them looking alike.) Wouldn't it have made more sense to cut this guy and one of the plentiful other characters figure out how to work the radio? Like, maybe, OUR LEAD CHARACTER, the supposedly smart and independent woman?
SAW GERRERA
This is Forest Whitaker. His character comes from nowhere and goes nowhere. But his last name sounds kind of like Guevara. (So you know he must be a rebel, like that guy on all those t-shirts!) And he's got stumpy metal feet. He serves no crucial purpose in this film and could have been edited out.
CHIRRUT ÎMWE
This is the blind guy with a stick -- who is the single most interesting, charismatic and entertaining character in this film. Heck, I would have LOVED a movie about just this guy. Why is he blind? Has he always been blind? Why does he believe in the force so intensely, even though he doesn't seem to have force powers? Why does he hang around the Jedi temple even though he wasn't a Jedi? How is he such a good fighter? Why does the guy with the big gun hang around with him? This character would have been great... if he was just given a bit more to do. Like, maybe teach our main character some important lesson about goodness or self-sacrifice. (Which he didn't get to do. He was allowed about two brief scenes, and that's it for him).
AMAZE BALLS
Okay, okay. That's not his real name. His real name is Baze Malbus, which sounds nothing like amazeballs. This is the guy with the big gun, who follows around the blind guy. They are friends. We don't know who he is or where he comes from or why he and the blind guy are friends, or what any of his motivation is, or even what his personality is, besides "stoic". He could easily have been edited out of the film, or had his one or two bits of action given to someone else.
I had been kind of excited about seeing Rogue One. It was supposed to be the first Star Wars spin-off -- i.e. a film starring none of the original or prequel main characters. One would think that it would have to be supported by the weight of the storytelling, and give us some bright new characters...
One would think.
Okay, so, I knew in advance that it was about the people who steal the original Death Star plan so that the original film (A New Hope) can take place. That's your basic plot right there. But here's the expanded plot:
Jyn witnesses her mother killed and her father taken away so that he could do some contractor work for the Empire. Forest Whittaker saves her. FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, Jyn is in prison for some unspecified reason (and no, we don't really ever find out what she's been doing for the past fifteen years, except apparently learning some fighting techniques). Some rebels rescue her -- for some unspecified reason, maybe because they somehow know that she's the daughter of the guy still doing contractor work for the Empire. She's shuffled around until she goes to the planet Jedha and meets up with Forest Whittaker, who says he's sorry he abandoned her a couple years back. Then he shows her a video of her Dad stating that there's a vague way to blow up the Death Star. Then the Death Star flies over and blows the WHOLE PLACE UP, just for fun. Jyn just escapes with some new friends (Blind Guy With Stick and Guy With Big Gun, not to mention Pilot Who Wears Goggles) while Forest Whittaker stays to die (for unclear reasons. Maybe because he's got big, clunky metal feet and can't run fast?)
So, they go to meet up with the Rebellion folks, who are pretty indecisive. They won't do anything, so Jyn and her group of new pals decide to go and pay a visit to her Dad on Always-Raining planet to get more detailed plans on how to blow up the Death Star. They arrive just in time to see Dad die. But, luckily, he just has time to say where the Death Star plans are kept. So they then drive to Always-Tropical planet and have some random hijinks as they attempt to find the floppy disc that the plans are stored on. Then, the bad guys close the atmosphere's airlock so that the good guys can't fly through or upload things (because, the filmmakers clearly wanted an homage to the greatest of all Star Wars movies, Spaceballs)...
...but then that's easily taken care of. Then there are some more hijinx as they attempt to upload the Death Star plans to the first Rebellion ship they see (oh, did I mention that the Rebellion finally decided to fight? You know, because they heard that somebody had already started fighting. Very brave of them.) And then they get it uploaded. And everyone blows up. End of movie.
Okay.
I've got several problems with this movie, but here is my main problem with this movie:
This is a movie with entirely new characters. AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NEW CHARACTERS.
Here are our new characters:
JYN ERSO
As I said, Jyn was the daughter of the guy who designed the Death Star. This much we gathered from the trailer. But what has she been doing for all the time that she spent on her own? And what's her personality like? WHO KNOWS? Apparently the filmmakers figured that because she's only appearing in this one movie, we don't need to actually know anything about her. She has no character arc and her motivations are vague at best. I think Jyn would have been more interesting if she had actually gone with her father and the Empire forced her to be raised as a loyal Empire subject, and she only got through it by being really cynical and self-centered -- and then she falls into the Rebellion plot, and learns about self-sacrifice and goodness.... As it is, the self-sacrifice that happens in this movie kind of comes out of nowhere. A huge disappointment. (This is getting to be my mantra.... but I don't blame the actress. Nothing was written for her to do).
GALEN ERSO
This is the guy who designed the Death Star. He is played by the actor with the best name, Mads Mikkelson (above). I didn't even bother to look up a picture of him in costume, because he isn't given anything to do in this movie. He is kind of sad when his wife dies, and kind of sad when he himself dies. And that's it.
CASSIAN ANDOR
I had to look up this character's name because I couldn't remember it. This delicate, dainty little man is, OSTENSIBLY, our lead male character. He has no personality and no backstory (except for some familial "losses" that we are told about but never see, and the fact that he's been fighting for the rebels for a long time). He has an introductory scene in which he kills some random person, which for the rest of the film confused me into thinking that he was going to betray the good guys in the end -- which he did not. (I guess that was supposed to be his Han-Shot-First moment, but it just really muddied the waters). I was, and am, terribly confused by the casting of this character. I seriously kept waiting for the real main male lead to show up, because I couldn't believe this was him. I guess, if you're going to have a "strong female lead" you can't also have strong male leads, in somebody's mind. Why can't both sexes be strong together? Doesn't that seem fair? But no. He was pretty limp. He was supposed to be the "Han Solo-type" -- except that he had about as much machismo as Bret from the Flight of the Conchords . And zero charisma. (Bret has much more charisma. But he's also allowed to have a personality, as pictured below.)
Bret!K2SO
We get more backstory and personality from the stupid "C3P0-type" robot than from practically any other character. He used to be an Empire robot, you see, but the Rebellion captured and reprogrammed him. So now he's just a jerk. So, there you have it! That's all you need to make a character, and they squander it on this guy! What did we need him for? Nothing that couldn't have been taken care of by someone else. He was in this movie because Disney said there had to be a funny robot in this movie. (For the kids).
BODHI ROOK
I also had to look up this guy's name. Another beta-male with no backstory. He defected from the Empire and he wears goggles, and can pilot a ship (although I'm not sure we ever actually see him piloting a ship -- he mostly works on radio communications). I kept confusing him and our main lead guy because they were too physically similar, (which seemed like another weird call on the filmmaker's part. They usually know that you don't cast people who look too much alike unless you're making a point about them looking alike.) Wouldn't it have made more sense to cut this guy and one of the plentiful other characters figure out how to work the radio? Like, maybe, OUR LEAD CHARACTER, the supposedly smart and independent woman?
SAW GERRERA
This is Forest Whitaker. His character comes from nowhere and goes nowhere. But his last name sounds kind of like Guevara. (So you know he must be a rebel, like that guy on all those t-shirts!) And he's got stumpy metal feet. He serves no crucial purpose in this film and could have been edited out.
CHIRRUT ÎMWE
This is the blind guy with a stick -- who is the single most interesting, charismatic and entertaining character in this film. Heck, I would have LOVED a movie about just this guy. Why is he blind? Has he always been blind? Why does he believe in the force so intensely, even though he doesn't seem to have force powers? Why does he hang around the Jedi temple even though he wasn't a Jedi? How is he such a good fighter? Why does the guy with the big gun hang around with him? This character would have been great... if he was just given a bit more to do. Like, maybe teach our main character some important lesson about goodness or self-sacrifice. (Which he didn't get to do. He was allowed about two brief scenes, and that's it for him).AMAZE BALLS
Okay, okay. That's not his real name. His real name is Baze Malbus, which sounds nothing like amazeballs. This is the guy with the big gun, who follows around the blind guy. They are friends. We don't know who he is or where he comes from or why he and the blind guy are friends, or what any of his motivation is, or even what his personality is, besides "stoic". He could easily have been edited out of the film, or had his one or two bits of action given to someone else.
December 20, 2016
Jingle All the Way (1996)... Is Not Recommended
I'm guessing you've probably seen the movie "Jingle All the Way". In it, Arnold Schwarzenegger plays ordinary businessman, Howard Langston, who has been a bit too busy for his kid lately -- and decides to make up for it by buying him the toy he most desires for Christmas. Unfortunately, the toy the child most desires is also the year's hottest toy, "Turbo Man", and nigh-on impossible to find... which sends Howard on a highly improbable and rather cynical Christmas adventure to locate the last available Turbo Man in the unnamed major city that he lives in.
See how frustrated he is? You can't get much more frustrated than that.
It's like there's an imaginary loaf of bread stuck right through his head.Okay... if you've seen this, do I really need to describe the problems with this movie? Probably not, but let's start with...
1. THE STORYI already used the word "cynical" in the description above -- but, yes, this is a really cynical story. Granted, there are a lot of Christmas stories about people being horrible and un-Christmas-like to each other at Christmastime (I mean, isn't that the whole point of just about any version of A Christmas Carol?) but in many of those films, the story is about a singular person being awful and then learning the true meaning of Christmas. Or, alternatively, if everyone in the movie is awful, it's about a singular good person coming to town and teaching all those awful people the true meaning of Christmas (Prancer would be a good example of that, and Miracle on 34th Street, and so on). In this particularly film, though, people are awful and selfish and horrible to each other -- and it's amplified by Christmas -- but do they learn a good moral at the end?... Not really. The ending of this film would have been a really good spot for a "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas"-type moral...
... and that's really not what we get. Yes, in the end, the boy does give away his toy to someone else who wanted it, but why does he do it? Because he's unselfish? Because he's learned the true meaning of Christmas? No, because his Dad played Turbo Man in the parade, and therefore, he "has the real Turbo Man at home!"
Alternatively... Mr. Hall and I discussed this for a bit, and he makes the (probably valid) point that what the child wanted all along wasn't Turbo Man at all -- it was his Dad. He gives up the toy at the end because he got what he really wanted -- his Dad to care about him. Okay, I guess that's not a bad thing in itself... but his giving the toy away is still essentially just giving away a lesser version of something he's already got, which isn't necessarily a Christmas-level act of charity. Plus, we have to live with the knowledge that he's giving it away to a boy who will have to use Turbo Man as a Dad substitute, because his Dad (Sinbad) is going to prison for trying to kill a child during a holiday parade. Merry Christmas!
2. THE TONE We have two sorts of tones in this film: Realism...
He's looking for a present that's out of stock at the stores!
The clerks are rude!...And Absurdity.
Black market toy ring where everyone dresses like Santa!
One of them is a 7-foot tall professional wrestler!I'm not saying it's impossible to successfully move back and forth between these two tones in a film. But, if you're telling us that this is a world which is just a slightly heightened version of the world that you and I currently live in -- then, you know what? If that's the case, no one should have laser beams or jetpacks. (Yes. There are both laser beams and functional personal jetpacks in this movie.)
3. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. I'm just going to say it: Screenwriters, don't name the guy with the heavy Austrian accent "Howard Langston". Call him Rick Schmidt, or Jack Von Braun -- because he is clearly not from around here. The unlikely last name "Langston" just emphasizes that fact, and makes him seem weird and phoney. He can barely even pronounce "Howard"; it comes out "Hauuhd". Casting Arnold in this film makes it very stilted and stagey and ... well, not convincing.
Du bist mein kind! Gehorcht mir!
Oh, there's also:
4. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Why on earth did they cast Arnold Schwarzenegger as "Ordinary Business Dad"? Is there anyone you know who is less like "Ordinary Business Dad" than Arnold Schwarzenegger? Was Charles Grodin busy that week? (That man knows how to hold an imaginary loaf of bread).
Charles Grodin (right) as ordinary business Dad with invisible bread.
Charles Grodin (right) as ordinary business Dad, protecting invisible bread from dog.I get that they were going for cute "fish out of water" scenario by putting "Super Action Man" in "Family Christmas Movie" -- the same kind of scenario that was achieved in the film Kindergarten Cop. However, in a film like Kindergarten Cop, the tone was consistent and -- dare I say it? -- believable. Arnold didn't ride an enchanted elephant to save the day.
THAT SAID...
Why have I seen this movie? And why have YOU likely already seen this movie? There is one main reason for this:
1. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
I won't make any dramatic claims that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a great actor (and, given some revelations in the past few years, I'd rather not discuss his home life). But you know what he has in spades? Charisma. He is charismatic and very fun to watch -- even now. When he's on the screen, are you looking at anyone else? No! Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only reason a person could or should watch Jingle All the Way. (Which is why I find it very perplexing that they did a sequel to this movie starring Larry the Cable Guy.)
Seriously. It happened.That said, I don't think you should watch Jingle All the Way -- no, I'm just explaining why it's likely that you have watched it, and why I have both watched it and have a copy of this on my shelf. If you're an Arnold completionist, sure, but it's not a good movie. The tonal issues and lack of a truly heartwarming Christmas resolution kind of ruin it. I mean, I've tried to watch this as a "good BAD movie" -- you know, getting together a group of friends to skewer the thing -- and not even a group of friends, attuned to the hilarious nuances of bad movies, could make this thing good.
NOT RECOMMENDED.
See how frustrated he is? You can't get much more frustrated than that.It's like there's an imaginary loaf of bread stuck right through his head.Okay... if you've seen this, do I really need to describe the problems with this movie? Probably not, but let's start with...
1. THE STORYI already used the word "cynical" in the description above -- but, yes, this is a really cynical story. Granted, there are a lot of Christmas stories about people being horrible and un-Christmas-like to each other at Christmastime (I mean, isn't that the whole point of just about any version of A Christmas Carol?) but in many of those films, the story is about a singular person being awful and then learning the true meaning of Christmas. Or, alternatively, if everyone in the movie is awful, it's about a singular good person coming to town and teaching all those awful people the true meaning of Christmas (Prancer would be a good example of that, and Miracle on 34th Street, and so on). In this particularly film, though, people are awful and selfish and horrible to each other -- and it's amplified by Christmas -- but do they learn a good moral at the end?... Not really. The ending of this film would have been a really good spot for a "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas"-type moral...
... and that's really not what we get. Yes, in the end, the boy does give away his toy to someone else who wanted it, but why does he do it? Because he's unselfish? Because he's learned the true meaning of Christmas? No, because his Dad played Turbo Man in the parade, and therefore, he "has the real Turbo Man at home!"
Alternatively... Mr. Hall and I discussed this for a bit, and he makes the (probably valid) point that what the child wanted all along wasn't Turbo Man at all -- it was his Dad. He gives up the toy at the end because he got what he really wanted -- his Dad to care about him. Okay, I guess that's not a bad thing in itself... but his giving the toy away is still essentially just giving away a lesser version of something he's already got, which isn't necessarily a Christmas-level act of charity. Plus, we have to live with the knowledge that he's giving it away to a boy who will have to use Turbo Man as a Dad substitute, because his Dad (Sinbad) is going to prison for trying to kill a child during a holiday parade. Merry Christmas!
2. THE TONE We have two sorts of tones in this film: Realism...
He's looking for a present that's out of stock at the stores!The clerks are rude!...And Absurdity.
Black market toy ring where everyone dresses like Santa! One of them is a 7-foot tall professional wrestler!I'm not saying it's impossible to successfully move back and forth between these two tones in a film. But, if you're telling us that this is a world which is just a slightly heightened version of the world that you and I currently live in -- then, you know what? If that's the case, no one should have laser beams or jetpacks. (Yes. There are both laser beams and functional personal jetpacks in this movie.)
3. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. I'm just going to say it: Screenwriters, don't name the guy with the heavy Austrian accent "Howard Langston". Call him Rick Schmidt, or Jack Von Braun -- because he is clearly not from around here. The unlikely last name "Langston" just emphasizes that fact, and makes him seem weird and phoney. He can barely even pronounce "Howard"; it comes out "Hauuhd". Casting Arnold in this film makes it very stilted and stagey and ... well, not convincing.
-large-picture.jpg&f=1)
Du bist mein kind! Gehorcht mir!
Oh, there's also:4. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Why on earth did they cast Arnold Schwarzenegger as "Ordinary Business Dad"? Is there anyone you know who is less like "Ordinary Business Dad" than Arnold Schwarzenegger? Was Charles Grodin busy that week? (That man knows how to hold an imaginary loaf of bread).
Charles Grodin (right) as ordinary business Dad with invisible bread.
Charles Grodin (right) as ordinary business Dad, protecting invisible bread from dog.I get that they were going for cute "fish out of water" scenario by putting "Super Action Man" in "Family Christmas Movie" -- the same kind of scenario that was achieved in the film Kindergarten Cop. However, in a film like Kindergarten Cop, the tone was consistent and -- dare I say it? -- believable. Arnold didn't ride an enchanted elephant to save the day. THAT SAID...
Why have I seen this movie? And why have YOU likely already seen this movie? There is one main reason for this:
1. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
I won't make any dramatic claims that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a great actor (and, given some revelations in the past few years, I'd rather not discuss his home life). But you know what he has in spades? Charisma. He is charismatic and very fun to watch -- even now. When he's on the screen, are you looking at anyone else? No! Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only reason a person could or should watch Jingle All the Way. (Which is why I find it very perplexing that they did a sequel to this movie starring Larry the Cable Guy.)
Seriously. It happened.That said, I don't think you should watch Jingle All the Way -- no, I'm just explaining why it's likely that you have watched it, and why I have both watched it and have a copy of this on my shelf. If you're an Arnold completionist, sure, but it's not a good movie. The tonal issues and lack of a truly heartwarming Christmas resolution kind of ruin it. I mean, I've tried to watch this as a "good BAD movie" -- you know, getting together a group of friends to skewer the thing -- and not even a group of friends, attuned to the hilarious nuances of bad movies, could make this thing good.NOT RECOMMENDED.
Jingle All the Way (1996)...
I'm guessing you've probably seen the movie "Jingle All the Way". In it, Arnold Schwarzenegger plays ordinary businessman, Howard Langston, who has been a bit too busy for his kid lately -- and decides to make up for it by buying him the toy he most desires for Christmas. Unfortunately, the toy the child most desires is also the year's hottest toy, "Turbo Man", and nigh-on impossible to find... which sends Howard on a highly improbable and rather cynical Christmas adventure to locate the last available Turbo Man in the unnamed major city that he lives in.
See how frustrated he is? You can't get much more frustrated than that.
It's like there's an imaginary loaf of bread stuck right through his head.Okay... if you've seen this, do I really need to describe the problems with this movie? Probably not, but let's start with...
1. THE STORYI already used the word "cynical" in the description above -- but, yes, this is a really cynical story. Granted, there are a lot of Christmas stories about people being horrible and un-Christmas-like to each other at Christmastime (I mean, isn't that the whole point of just about any version of A Christmas Carol?) but in many of those films, the story is about a singular person being awful and then learning the true meaning of Christmas. Or, alternatively, if everyone in the movie is awful, it's about a singular good person coming to town and teaching all those awful people the true meaning of Christmas (Prancer would be a good example of that, and Miracle on 34th Street, and so on). In this particularly film, though, people are awful and selfish and horrible to each other -- and it's amplified by Christmas -- but do they learn a good moral at the end?... Not really. The ending of this film would have been a really good spot for a "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas"-type moral...
... and that's really not what we get. Yes, in the end, the boy does give away his toy to someone else who wanted it, but why does he do it? Because he's unselfish? Because he's learned the true meaning of Christmas? No, because his Dad played Turbo Man in the parade, and therefore, he "has the real Turbo Man at home!"
Alternatively... Mr. Hall and I discussed this for a bit, and he makes the (probably valid) point that what the child wanted all along wasn't Turbo Man at all -- it was his Dad. He gives up the toy at the end because he got what he really wanted -- his Dad to care about him. Okay, I guess that's not a bad thing in itself... but his giving the toy away is still essentially just giving away a lesser version of something he's already got, which isn't necessarily a Christmas-level act of charity. Plus, we have to live with the knowledge that he's giving it away to a boy who will have to use Turbo Man as a Dad substitute, because his Dad (Sinbad) is going to prison for trying to kill a child during a holiday parade. Merry Christmas!
2. THE TONE We have two sorts of tones in this film: Realism...
He's looking for a present that's out of stock at the stores!
The clerks are rude!...And absurdity.
Black market toy ring where everyone dresses like Santa!
One of them is a 7-foot tall professional wrestler!I'm not saying it's impossible to successfully move back and forth between these two tones in a film. But, if you're telling us that this is a world which is just a slightly heightened version of the world that you and I currently live in -- then, you know what? If that's the case, no one should have laser beams or jetpacks. (Yes. There are both laser beams and functional personal jetpacks in this movie.)
3. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. I'm just going to say it: Screenwriters, don't name the guy with the heavy Austrian accent "Howard Langston". Call him Rick Schmidt, or Jack Von Braun -- because he is clearly not from around here. The unlikely last name "Langston" just emphasizes that fact, and makes him seem weird and phoney. He can barely even pronounce "Howard"; it comes out "Hauuhd". Casting Arnold in this film makes it very stilted and stagey and ... well, not convincing.
Du bist mein kind! Gehorcht mir!
Oh, there's also:
4. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Why on earth did they cast Arnold Schwarzenegger as "Ordinary Business Dad"? Is there anyone you know who is less like "Ordinary Business Dad" than Arnold Schwarzenegger? Was Charles Grodin busy that week? (That man knows how to hold an imaginary loaf of bread).
Charles Grodin (right) as ordinary business Dad with invisible bread.
Charles Grodin (right) as ordinary business Dad, protecting invisible bread from dog.I get that they were going for cute "fish out of water" scenario by putting "Super Action Man" in "Family Christmas Movie" -- the same kind of scenario that was achieved in the film Kindergarten Cop. However, in a film like Kindergarten Cop, the tone was consistent and -- dare I say it? -- realistic. Arnold didn't ride an enchanted elephant to save the day.
THAT SAID...
Why have I seen this movie? And why have YOU likely already seen this movie? There is one main reason for this:
1. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
I won't make any dramatic claims that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a great actor (and, given some revelations in the past few years, I'd rather not discuss his home life). But you know what he has in spades? Charisma. He is charismatic and very fun to watch -- even now. When he's on the screen, are you looking at anyone else? No! Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only reason a person could or should watch Jingle All the Way. (Which is why I find it very perplexing that they did a sequel to this movie starring Larry the Cable Guy.)
Seriously. It happened.That said, I don't think you should watch Jingle All the Way -- no, I'm just explaining why it's likely that you have watched it, and why I have both watched it and have a copy of this on my shelf. If you're an Arnold completionist, sure, but it's not a good movie. The tonal issues and lack of a truly heartwarming Christmas resolution kind of ruin it. I mean, I've tried to watch this as a "good BAD movie" -- you know, getting together a group of friends to skewer the thing -- and not even a group of friends, attuned to the hilarious nuances of bad movies, could make this thing good.
NOT RECOMMENDED.
See how frustrated he is? You can't get much more frustrated than that.It's like there's an imaginary loaf of bread stuck right through his head.Okay... if you've seen this, do I really need to describe the problems with this movie? Probably not, but let's start with...
1. THE STORYI already used the word "cynical" in the description above -- but, yes, this is a really cynical story. Granted, there are a lot of Christmas stories about people being horrible and un-Christmas-like to each other at Christmastime (I mean, isn't that the whole point of just about any version of A Christmas Carol?) but in many of those films, the story is about a singular person being awful and then learning the true meaning of Christmas. Or, alternatively, if everyone in the movie is awful, it's about a singular good person coming to town and teaching all those awful people the true meaning of Christmas (Prancer would be a good example of that, and Miracle on 34th Street, and so on). In this particularly film, though, people are awful and selfish and horrible to each other -- and it's amplified by Christmas -- but do they learn a good moral at the end?... Not really. The ending of this film would have been a really good spot for a "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas"-type moral...
... and that's really not what we get. Yes, in the end, the boy does give away his toy to someone else who wanted it, but why does he do it? Because he's unselfish? Because he's learned the true meaning of Christmas? No, because his Dad played Turbo Man in the parade, and therefore, he "has the real Turbo Man at home!"
Alternatively... Mr. Hall and I discussed this for a bit, and he makes the (probably valid) point that what the child wanted all along wasn't Turbo Man at all -- it was his Dad. He gives up the toy at the end because he got what he really wanted -- his Dad to care about him. Okay, I guess that's not a bad thing in itself... but his giving the toy away is still essentially just giving away a lesser version of something he's already got, which isn't necessarily a Christmas-level act of charity. Plus, we have to live with the knowledge that he's giving it away to a boy who will have to use Turbo Man as a Dad substitute, because his Dad (Sinbad) is going to prison for trying to kill a child during a holiday parade. Merry Christmas!
2. THE TONE We have two sorts of tones in this film: Realism...
He's looking for a present that's out of stock at the stores!The clerks are rude!...And absurdity.
Black market toy ring where everyone dresses like Santa! One of them is a 7-foot tall professional wrestler!I'm not saying it's impossible to successfully move back and forth between these two tones in a film. But, if you're telling us that this is a world which is just a slightly heightened version of the world that you and I currently live in -- then, you know what? If that's the case, no one should have laser beams or jetpacks. (Yes. There are both laser beams and functional personal jetpacks in this movie.)
3. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. I'm just going to say it: Screenwriters, don't name the guy with the heavy Austrian accent "Howard Langston". Call him Rick Schmidt, or Jack Von Braun -- because he is clearly not from around here. The unlikely last name "Langston" just emphasizes that fact, and makes him seem weird and phoney. He can barely even pronounce "Howard"; it comes out "Hauuhd". Casting Arnold in this film makes it very stilted and stagey and ... well, not convincing.
Du bist mein kind! Gehorcht mir!
Oh, there's also:4. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Why on earth did they cast Arnold Schwarzenegger as "Ordinary Business Dad"? Is there anyone you know who is less like "Ordinary Business Dad" than Arnold Schwarzenegger? Was Charles Grodin busy that week? (That man knows how to hold an imaginary loaf of bread).
Charles Grodin (right) as ordinary business Dad with invisible bread.
Charles Grodin (right) as ordinary business Dad, protecting invisible bread from dog.I get that they were going for cute "fish out of water" scenario by putting "Super Action Man" in "Family Christmas Movie" -- the same kind of scenario that was achieved in the film Kindergarten Cop. However, in a film like Kindergarten Cop, the tone was consistent and -- dare I say it? -- realistic. Arnold didn't ride an enchanted elephant to save the day. THAT SAID...
Why have I seen this movie? And why have YOU likely already seen this movie? There is one main reason for this:
1. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
I won't make any dramatic claims that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a great actor (and, given some revelations in the past few years, I'd rather not discuss his home life). But you know what he has in spades? Charisma. He is charismatic and very fun to watch -- even now. When he's on the screen, are you looking at anyone else? No! Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only reason a person could or should watch Jingle All the Way. (Which is why I find it very perplexing that they did a sequel to this movie starring Larry the Cable Guy.)
Seriously. It happened.That said, I don't think you should watch Jingle All the Way -- no, I'm just explaining why it's likely that you have watched it, and why I have both watched it and have a copy of this on my shelf. If you're an Arnold completionist, sure, but it's not a good movie. The tonal issues and lack of a truly heartwarming Christmas resolution kind of ruin it. I mean, I've tried to watch this as a "good BAD movie" -- you know, getting together a group of friends to skewer the thing -- and not even a group of friends, attuned to the hilarious nuances of bad movies, could make this thing good.NOT RECOMMENDED.
December 13, 2016
Batman Returns (1992)... A Wholly Seasonally Appropriate Film.
In these days of Batman v. Superman, the Tim Burton Batman movies don't get enough credit. As far as I'm concerned, Batman '89 is the ultimate Batman movie, and should be esteemed as such -- and it's not because I was a kid when it came out and I view it through those child-rose-colored glasses. In point of fact, I only saw it once as a kid and didn't like it much at the time. My admiration for Tim Burton was a slowly blossoming thing... which, of course, he later destroyed completely (*cough* Alice in Wonderland *cough*).
But this film is from the era of excellent Tim Burton movies. So Batman Returns also deserves respect. Not the SAME amount of respect as '89, as that film was really a dark horse that nobody really expected to see succeed... but still a decent amount of respect. And, hey, it's a Christmas movie!
Wholly seasonally appropriate.I do have a few gripes. (Are you surprised?) They're not huge gripes... really, they're kind of niggly little things, and I feel a bit petty talking about them.... So, first, let's talk about the things that are good about Batman Returns.
The sets were beautiful, just like they were in Batman '89, but now they're covered in snow and have Christmas lights, so even better. They fixed Batman's costume so that he can move his neck! He no longer has to rotate at the waist to see what's going on next to him. There are no bad performances in this film. Everybody does a pretty solid job with what they are given. The story has got some layers to it; there's always a discussion of the nature of duality in Batman films -- and villains who are like Batman in some sense, so there's always a suggestion of, "He could so easily have turned out as a villain....And this is what he would be like!" You can see this with all three of the villains.
Some people find Danny DeVito's "Penguin" to be a turn-off. I'll give it to you -- he's pretty gross. And if your experience of Penguin is Burgess Meredith from the 1960's Adam West TV show... you're probably going to find him doubly gross. But, you know what? I'll give them that. I'll give them that as their interpretation, because I don't find their interpretation inconsistent with the character... just a bit darker and grosser. I find it a little bit silly at times (such as the fact that he was apparently raised by sewer penguins), but it doesn't ruin the movie for me... Burgess Meredith was just as silly, just less dark and more family-safe.
We're not going for realism here, folks.And -- although I always forget that he's in the movie -- there's this:
Christopher Walken is, arguably, a very bizarre choice for this film. It's not bizarre that there is a villain who happens to be a businessman -- it's bizarre that he's played by Christopher Walken, who gives his typical Christopher Walken performance. He's less convincing than he is just really entertaining. All of his lines, no matter how mundane, make me laugh. In other words, I find it weird that they decided the most "ordinary" of the villains should look/act/sound like this! (And yes, I'm counting this as a good feature, and not as one of my peeves.)
So there are a lot of fun things about this film.
Now, here are two my peeves:
1. Not Enough Batman. This isn't unique to me -- I think everybody said this. I really love Michael Keaton's Batman/Bruce Wayne, and this film has even less of it than '89. We've got three villains in this film, which takes up the majority of the time and story - Catwoman, Penguin, and "Max Shrek, Evil Businessman" (as played by Christopher Walken). I'm really not sure why the Max Shrek character was even included -- perhaps just that, as Catwoman and Penguin were characterized, there was no way that either of them would be acceptable in polite society without some more normal person to be a conveyance for them -- and that's what Max Shrek did. He provided a socially acceptable conveyance that supported Catwoman and Penguin's inclusions in the story.
He just might have some trouble getting invited to parties.Michael Keaton did an excellent job with what little he was given. There's a moment in particular that I'm thinking of, when Bruce Wayne is watching the news story about the Penguin's emergence (when he's being treated by the news as a gentle freak in search of his missing parents) when Michael Keaton just has the little line, "His parents... I hope he finds them." There's a lot going on in that scene. First of all -- he's evaluating this Penguin weirdo because HE'S BATMAN -- he knows how bad this could easily go, and he's making sure that everything is okay. But he's also displaying a little-seen side of Bruce Wayne. He really does feel for the Penguin, and really does hope he finds his parents. Because he deeply understands that, too.
But I suppose it's better to have a few gems like that, than to have... Well, Batman Forever.
"Quality filmmaking."
2. Catwoman is a Freakin' Weirdo: I don't blame Michelle Pfeiffer.... I blame all the people around her. I'm really confused by why they portrayed Catwoman this way. I mean, traditionally speaking, Catwoman is an intelligent, independent, wholly-sane criminal lady. She's good at hopping and flipping and whatnot because she's a cat burglar.
Whereas, in this film, she's a weird, socially inept, kind of dumb woman who suffers a nearly fatal brain injury and is brought back to life by the magic of ...cats. This changes her personality so that she's socially inept but doesn't care, she dresses better, and is more overtly sexy, of course. Oh, and now, for some reason she now knows how to use a bullwhip, and kick people. What's her raison d'être? Um... getting revenge on Batman, for unclear reasons. (Or maybe just getting revenge on the guy who caused her brain injury...?) Either way, it wasn't really strong "purpose" for this character. I think I would have liked it better if her brain injury had turned her into a thief, like a compulsive thief, which would have given her a stronger reason for Batman to oppose her even while he's fascinated by her. As it is, the way she behaves and her goals don't make sense to me. Also...
I hate this scene.
I absolutely hate this scene. For one thing, the part you just missed was Batman getting knocked down after acting like an idiot, because this gal played the "woman" card -- and then, we get to watch them awkwardly shoehorn in a romantic Christmas moment that feels really, really out-of-place. I feel like Michael Keaton wasn't even quite buying this himself. Were they in danger of accidentally eating that mistletoe? NO! So why would you say that, unless you're just desperately seeking to make some small-talk, which seems quite out-of-character for Batman? (And, speaking of petty, niggling little points... how many of you put mistletoe on the chimney of your tenement apartment building?)
The way Batman/Bruce Wayne acts around her doesn't make sense at all. I mean, as Batman, he's enticed by Catwoman (which I guess kind of makes sense, since she's sexy and can fight good and stuff) but as Bruce Wayne, he's turned on by her alternate personality, Selena Kyle (who, even with the brain injury, is still hopelessly weird, socially inept and gross) I see no reason whatsoever why she would interest him. Find her confusing, maybe, but not find her attractive. And once he finds out that she's also Catwoman, he's willing to risk everything for her because "we're the same, split right down the middle" -- except, no, Bruce. You are not the same. You are organized, nice, and sane. She is gross, bad, and brain damaged.
See? Brain damage.To sum up, three things about Catwoman bother me: 1) the fact that she doesn't have a really good "purpose" for her character, 2) her behavior is mostly baffling, even before her head injury, and 3) that Batman acts dumb when she's around. If those three things could have been corrected, I would have been fine.
In the end, then, I suppose what I'm saying is this: I would have liked this movie better if they had minimized or left Catwoman out entirely and just played around with the duality/mirror image stuff with Penguin. They could have left Max Shrek out, too, but or else just used him as another, "This is what Batman could have been like, if things turned out differently..." They hint at some of the psychological stuff going on (Penguin, at one point says to Batman, "You're just jealous because I'm a real freak and you have to wear a mask!" and Batman answers, "...You may be right." That's kind of a huge and significant statement from Batman, folks, and it's just played off as a joke). If there had been less Catwoman, we could have covered some interesting psychological ground with Batman... but no, we needed a case of sexy concussion syndrome.
So, you may be asking, is this movie recommended or not?
RECOMMENDED.
OF COURSE IT IS. It's still a good movie. Like I said... almost everything about it is great. I just wish there could have been more of one thing, and less of another. And that's about all I have to say about that.
But this film is from the era of excellent Tim Burton movies. So Batman Returns also deserves respect. Not the SAME amount of respect as '89, as that film was really a dark horse that nobody really expected to see succeed... but still a decent amount of respect. And, hey, it's a Christmas movie!
Wholly seasonally appropriate.I do have a few gripes. (Are you surprised?) They're not huge gripes... really, they're kind of niggly little things, and I feel a bit petty talking about them.... So, first, let's talk about the things that are good about Batman Returns.The sets were beautiful, just like they were in Batman '89, but now they're covered in snow and have Christmas lights, so even better. They fixed Batman's costume so that he can move his neck! He no longer has to rotate at the waist to see what's going on next to him. There are no bad performances in this film. Everybody does a pretty solid job with what they are given. The story has got some layers to it; there's always a discussion of the nature of duality in Batman films -- and villains who are like Batman in some sense, so there's always a suggestion of, "He could so easily have turned out as a villain....And this is what he would be like!" You can see this with all three of the villains.
Some people find Danny DeVito's "Penguin" to be a turn-off. I'll give it to you -- he's pretty gross. And if your experience of Penguin is Burgess Meredith from the 1960's Adam West TV show... you're probably going to find him doubly gross. But, you know what? I'll give them that. I'll give them that as their interpretation, because I don't find their interpretation inconsistent with the character... just a bit darker and grosser. I find it a little bit silly at times (such as the fact that he was apparently raised by sewer penguins), but it doesn't ruin the movie for me... Burgess Meredith was just as silly, just less dark and more family-safe.
We're not going for realism here, folks.And -- although I always forget that he's in the movie -- there's this:Christopher Walken is, arguably, a very bizarre choice for this film. It's not bizarre that there is a villain who happens to be a businessman -- it's bizarre that he's played by Christopher Walken, who gives his typical Christopher Walken performance. He's less convincing than he is just really entertaining. All of his lines, no matter how mundane, make me laugh. In other words, I find it weird that they decided the most "ordinary" of the villains should look/act/sound like this! (And yes, I'm counting this as a good feature, and not as one of my peeves.)
So there are a lot of fun things about this film.
Now, here are two my peeves:
1. Not Enough Batman. This isn't unique to me -- I think everybody said this. I really love Michael Keaton's Batman/Bruce Wayne, and this film has even less of it than '89. We've got three villains in this film, which takes up the majority of the time and story - Catwoman, Penguin, and "Max Shrek, Evil Businessman" (as played by Christopher Walken). I'm really not sure why the Max Shrek character was even included -- perhaps just that, as Catwoman and Penguin were characterized, there was no way that either of them would be acceptable in polite society without some more normal person to be a conveyance for them -- and that's what Max Shrek did. He provided a socially acceptable conveyance that supported Catwoman and Penguin's inclusions in the story.
He just might have some trouble getting invited to parties.Michael Keaton did an excellent job with what little he was given. There's a moment in particular that I'm thinking of, when Bruce Wayne is watching the news story about the Penguin's emergence (when he's being treated by the news as a gentle freak in search of his missing parents) when Michael Keaton just has the little line, "His parents... I hope he finds them." There's a lot going on in that scene. First of all -- he's evaluating this Penguin weirdo because HE'S BATMAN -- he knows how bad this could easily go, and he's making sure that everything is okay. But he's also displaying a little-seen side of Bruce Wayne. He really does feel for the Penguin, and really does hope he finds his parents. Because he deeply understands that, too.But I suppose it's better to have a few gems like that, than to have... Well, Batman Forever.
"Quality filmmaking."2. Catwoman is a Freakin' Weirdo: I don't blame Michelle Pfeiffer.... I blame all the people around her. I'm really confused by why they portrayed Catwoman this way. I mean, traditionally speaking, Catwoman is an intelligent, independent, wholly-sane criminal lady. She's good at hopping and flipping and whatnot because she's a cat burglar.
Whereas, in this film, she's a weird, socially inept, kind of dumb woman who suffers a nearly fatal brain injury and is brought back to life by the magic of ...cats. This changes her personality so that she's socially inept but doesn't care, she dresses better, and is more overtly sexy, of course. Oh, and now, for some reason she now knows how to use a bullwhip, and kick people. What's her raison d'être? Um... getting revenge on Batman, for unclear reasons. (Or maybe just getting revenge on the guy who caused her brain injury...?) Either way, it wasn't really strong "purpose" for this character. I think I would have liked it better if her brain injury had turned her into a thief, like a compulsive thief, which would have given her a stronger reason for Batman to oppose her even while he's fascinated by her. As it is, the way she behaves and her goals don't make sense to me. Also...
I hate this scene.
I absolutely hate this scene. For one thing, the part you just missed was Batman getting knocked down after acting like an idiot, because this gal played the "woman" card -- and then, we get to watch them awkwardly shoehorn in a romantic Christmas moment that feels really, really out-of-place. I feel like Michael Keaton wasn't even quite buying this himself. Were they in danger of accidentally eating that mistletoe? NO! So why would you say that, unless you're just desperately seeking to make some small-talk, which seems quite out-of-character for Batman? (And, speaking of petty, niggling little points... how many of you put mistletoe on the chimney of your tenement apartment building?)
The way Batman/Bruce Wayne acts around her doesn't make sense at all. I mean, as Batman, he's enticed by Catwoman (which I guess kind of makes sense, since she's sexy and can fight good and stuff) but as Bruce Wayne, he's turned on by her alternate personality, Selena Kyle (who, even with the brain injury, is still hopelessly weird, socially inept and gross) I see no reason whatsoever why she would interest him. Find her confusing, maybe, but not find her attractive. And once he finds out that she's also Catwoman, he's willing to risk everything for her because "we're the same, split right down the middle" -- except, no, Bruce. You are not the same. You are organized, nice, and sane. She is gross, bad, and brain damaged.
See? Brain damage.To sum up, three things about Catwoman bother me: 1) the fact that she doesn't have a really good "purpose" for her character, 2) her behavior is mostly baffling, even before her head injury, and 3) that Batman acts dumb when she's around. If those three things could have been corrected, I would have been fine.In the end, then, I suppose what I'm saying is this: I would have liked this movie better if they had minimized or left Catwoman out entirely and just played around with the duality/mirror image stuff with Penguin. They could have left Max Shrek out, too, but or else just used him as another, "This is what Batman could have been like, if things turned out differently..." They hint at some of the psychological stuff going on (Penguin, at one point says to Batman, "You're just jealous because I'm a real freak and you have to wear a mask!" and Batman answers, "...You may be right." That's kind of a huge and significant statement from Batman, folks, and it's just played off as a joke). If there had been less Catwoman, we could have covered some interesting psychological ground with Batman... but no, we needed a case of sexy concussion syndrome.
So, you may be asking, is this movie recommended or not?
RECOMMENDED.
OF COURSE IT IS. It's still a good movie. Like I said... almost everything about it is great. I just wish there could have been more of one thing, and less of another. And that's about all I have to say about that.
December 6, 2016
Rocky (1976)... Is Hard to Talk About
Rocky is a bit hard to talk about -- so I'll keep this brief.
The Plot: Rocky Balboa is a "ham-an'-egger" -- a semi-professional boxer who has never hit the big time. He's working as an enforcer for a loan shark, and kind of flirting with an exceptionally shy girl who works at a pet store. The Boxing Champion of the World, Apollo Creed, decides that on New Year's Day he's going to fight an unknown boxer and give him a chance at the title -- and randomly picks Rocky. This is Rocky's big shot, his big break. Will he fail, or will he go the distance?
The Trailer.
Why is Rocky hard to talk about? Well, it's a long story, but here's how it starts out: Rocky was made during the 1970's. In the 1970's, especially the early-to-mid 70's, the film industry was heavily married to the notion of "realistic" stories -- i.e. stories about people being horrible to each other (because, in Hollywood's warped sensibilities, "realistic" meant [and continues to mean] worst-case scenarios where awful people are awful to other awful people -- and in the end, they all die. THE END.)
A classic example of this trend is The French Connection, which is an excellently made, highly-realistic, well-acted film -- with a grim, pointless ending that makes you ask both, "Why did I just watch this?!" and "That's... that's how this is going to end?! Why the hell did they make this movie?!"
See Gene Hackman's face? That's what movies
in the 1970's felt like.What Hollywood didn't understand (and continues to not understand) is twofold: A) that when you say "realistic", it doesn't necessarily mean that people are awful and everyone dies in the end, and B) when people they they want "realistic" movies, what they really mean is that they want believable movies. There's a big difference between a "realistic" movie and a "believable" movie. The catchline for Superman (1979) was:
...Not:
Do you see the difference I'm getting at, here? If a movie is well-done, even the "unrealistic" stuff (like high-tech gadgets that don't really exist, magic, or an absurdly happy ending) becomes believable, because of the structure, the acting, the special effects, the story, etc. etc.
However, Rocky is an exception to the rule -- a "realistic" movie with a "realistic" ending that doesn't leave you feeling like your soul is in a dank pit, covered in slugs.
In fact, I would say that Rocky is actually an excellently made film that features:
1. Excellent, natural dialogue.
2. Great performances.
3. Wonderful music that exemplifies the 1970's and yet isn't distractingly dated.
4. A plot that somehow walks the line to be both "realistic" and "heartwarming".
5. A timeless story.
And that's why it's hard to talk about -- because, when you get right down to it, you just want to go, "It was great!" and leave it at that.
Now, people in general give the Rocky movies a lot of crap -- but, I feel that those people have probably just seen a few scenes from Rocky IV (like, maybe this one):
...And they assume that all the Rocky movies are dopey and silly. Nay, not so! The Rocky of Rocky lives in a world full of horrible, "realistic" people (quite a number of whom have weird idiosyncrasies and possibly mental/emotional problems) and has a horrible job doing horrible things... and yet, he's essentially a really good-hearted guy who you believe in and want to have succeed.
My most favorite scene in this movie is right after one of those very 1970's, awful moments where Mickey (Rocky's trainer) comes to Rocky and asks him for a favor, and Rocky gets upset and yells at him...
Here's the whole scene, right here. It's about eight minutes long.
The resolution to that scene (starting about 7:00 in this clip) is beautiful. There are no words. It's all in long shot, you can't hear the dialogue. Most other "realistic" films from the 1970's would have left the shot on at the 7:00 mark, and that's it... But the fact that it doesn't, and the way it goes on, tells you everything you need to know about what kind of a person Rocky is, and it's what makes this movie exceptional, rather than just another soggy, oily, 1970's nihilism-fest. This is a genuinely good, heartwarming movie you should own and watch multiple times.
Oh, and the story takes place over Thanksgiving and Christmas, which makes this film seasonally appropriate!
RECOMMENDED.
The Plot: Rocky Balboa is a "ham-an'-egger" -- a semi-professional boxer who has never hit the big time. He's working as an enforcer for a loan shark, and kind of flirting with an exceptionally shy girl who works at a pet store. The Boxing Champion of the World, Apollo Creed, decides that on New Year's Day he's going to fight an unknown boxer and give him a chance at the title -- and randomly picks Rocky. This is Rocky's big shot, his big break. Will he fail, or will he go the distance?
The Trailer.
Why is Rocky hard to talk about? Well, it's a long story, but here's how it starts out: Rocky was made during the 1970's. In the 1970's, especially the early-to-mid 70's, the film industry was heavily married to the notion of "realistic" stories -- i.e. stories about people being horrible to each other (because, in Hollywood's warped sensibilities, "realistic" meant [and continues to mean] worst-case scenarios where awful people are awful to other awful people -- and in the end, they all die. THE END.)
A classic example of this trend is The French Connection, which is an excellently made, highly-realistic, well-acted film -- with a grim, pointless ending that makes you ask both, "Why did I just watch this?!" and "That's... that's how this is going to end?! Why the hell did they make this movie?!"
See Gene Hackman's face? That's what movies in the 1970's felt like.What Hollywood didn't understand (and continues to not understand) is twofold: A) that when you say "realistic", it doesn't necessarily mean that people are awful and everyone dies in the end, and B) when people they they want "realistic" movies, what they really mean is that they want believable movies. There's a big difference between a "realistic" movie and a "believable" movie. The catchline for Superman (1979) was:
...Not:
Do you see the difference I'm getting at, here? If a movie is well-done, even the "unrealistic" stuff (like high-tech gadgets that don't really exist, magic, or an absurdly happy ending) becomes believable, because of the structure, the acting, the special effects, the story, etc. etc.
However, Rocky is an exception to the rule -- a "realistic" movie with a "realistic" ending that doesn't leave you feeling like your soul is in a dank pit, covered in slugs.
In fact, I would say that Rocky is actually an excellently made film that features:
1. Excellent, natural dialogue.
2. Great performances.
3. Wonderful music that exemplifies the 1970's and yet isn't distractingly dated.
4. A plot that somehow walks the line to be both "realistic" and "heartwarming".
5. A timeless story.
And that's why it's hard to talk about -- because, when you get right down to it, you just want to go, "It was great!" and leave it at that.
Now, people in general give the Rocky movies a lot of crap -- but, I feel that those people have probably just seen a few scenes from Rocky IV (like, maybe this one):
...And they assume that all the Rocky movies are dopey and silly. Nay, not so! The Rocky of Rocky lives in a world full of horrible, "realistic" people (quite a number of whom have weird idiosyncrasies and possibly mental/emotional problems) and has a horrible job doing horrible things... and yet, he's essentially a really good-hearted guy who you believe in and want to have succeed.
My most favorite scene in this movie is right after one of those very 1970's, awful moments where Mickey (Rocky's trainer) comes to Rocky and asks him for a favor, and Rocky gets upset and yells at him...
Here's the whole scene, right here. It's about eight minutes long.
The resolution to that scene (starting about 7:00 in this clip) is beautiful. There are no words. It's all in long shot, you can't hear the dialogue. Most other "realistic" films from the 1970's would have left the shot on at the 7:00 mark, and that's it... But the fact that it doesn't, and the way it goes on, tells you everything you need to know about what kind of a person Rocky is, and it's what makes this movie exceptional, rather than just another soggy, oily, 1970's nihilism-fest. This is a genuinely good, heartwarming movie you should own and watch multiple times.
Oh, and the story takes place over Thanksgiving and Christmas, which makes this film seasonally appropriate!
RECOMMENDED.
November 29, 2016
The Peanut Butter Solution (1985) is the most bizarre movie... ever?
Mr. Hall was telling me about random films that he was forced to watch as parts of school days when he was a kid. No, I'm not talking about educational films -- I'm talking just regular, ordinary, entertainment-focused films with zero educational value. (As a homeschooler, I missed the experience of having the state force me to watch Don Knotts movies on the taxpayer's dime).
Well, as it turns out, in addition to being forced to watch The Shakiest Gun in the West (which I accidentally left off my recent list of Films that We've Shut Off ) he watched a film called The Peanut Butter Solution.
He described this film to me, and I thought he must have dreamed it. But then he found an actual copy of this movie and we watched it, and it really does exist.
The Plot: A boy named Michael is sad because is his Mom is away, and he's left at home with a somewhat bossy older sister and a loopy artist father who makes bad financial choices. On the way to school, the boy is terrified by something so scary that it makes him a) lose all memory of the incident, and b) lose his hair. After being bald-shamed during a soccer match, he refuses to go back to school, until two ghosts appear to him in a dream and tell him to make a solution out of peanut butter that will grow his hair back. Well, he does so, and adds TOO MUCH peanut butter, and gets the opposite problem -- his hair won't stop growing. Add an eccentric Asian best friend, magic, child abduction and sweatshops to the mix, and there you go -- The Peanut Butter Solution.
The Trailer.
The Bad Points:
The family dynamic in this film is really confusing... to the point of being somewhat unsettling. The acting isn't great (but it's also pretty natural-feeling, for the most part).There were a few terrible jokes (like when the Doctor says that our hero's condition is called "Hairum-Scareum") but, for the most part, these are so few and far inbetween that in addition to being groaners, they seem reallyof out-of-place as well. (I mean, do you really anticipate Bugs Bunny-level wordplay in a film that also features homeless people being burned to death?) Also, I was utterly perplexed as to why anybody thought this was something that should happen in a movie, ever:
On the left. That's hair.You see, at one point, his wacky Asian best friend smears some of the solution "down there" just to see what will happen, and we're treated to this horrifying image. (He wills it to stop growing eventually, so this doesn't become a major plot element, but this one glimpse of this scenario would have been bad enough.)
The Good Points:
It gets a bit dark (as you probably gathered from the comments about child abduction, etc. etc). I debated whether or not to list that as a bad point or a good point, and finally decided on "good" -- because I think that modern children's movies are far too soft, being afraid to have real villains, real stakes and real tension. There is nothing in this film that will give a child permanent psychological damage (except, maybe, that screen capture above). And, for that matter, I think kids developing fears of going into sketchy burnt-out buildings and of people who drive up in vans and attempt to abduct them is a good thing. The music is pretty good. (Apparently film this was Celine Dion's big break? And no, I'm not kidding about that.)It keeps you guessing! (Did I already mention that it was impossible to figure out what was going to happen next in this film?)I almost don't know what to say about this movie. I will say this, though; even though large parts of it didn't make sense at all, it was actually a pretty entertaining film. We never, ever knew what was going to happen next. I would actually own a copy of this film and re-watch it. So, in the end, it's definitely recommended... with the stipulation that you have to be in the mood for a really sketchily made, confusing, kind of bad kid's movie -- that nevertheless has a lot of entertainment value.
But what was this movie ultimately about? Was it about conquering your fears and shame? Was it about the cruelty of childhood? About missing your parents when they're away? The value of a good education? The notion that artists don't make good parents? Was it a comedy? A drama? Or is it just the summit of Canadian filmmaking? The answer: It's about all of that and more.
Well, as it turns out, in addition to being forced to watch The Shakiest Gun in the West (which I accidentally left off my recent list of Films that We've Shut Off ) he watched a film called The Peanut Butter Solution.
He described this film to me, and I thought he must have dreamed it. But then he found an actual copy of this movie and we watched it, and it really does exist.
The Plot: A boy named Michael is sad because is his Mom is away, and he's left at home with a somewhat bossy older sister and a loopy artist father who makes bad financial choices. On the way to school, the boy is terrified by something so scary that it makes him a) lose all memory of the incident, and b) lose his hair. After being bald-shamed during a soccer match, he refuses to go back to school, until two ghosts appear to him in a dream and tell him to make a solution out of peanut butter that will grow his hair back. Well, he does so, and adds TOO MUCH peanut butter, and gets the opposite problem -- his hair won't stop growing. Add an eccentric Asian best friend, magic, child abduction and sweatshops to the mix, and there you go -- The Peanut Butter Solution.
The Trailer.
The Bad Points:
The family dynamic in this film is really confusing... to the point of being somewhat unsettling. The acting isn't great (but it's also pretty natural-feeling, for the most part).There were a few terrible jokes (like when the Doctor says that our hero's condition is called "Hairum-Scareum") but, for the most part, these are so few and far inbetween that in addition to being groaners, they seem reallyof out-of-place as well. (I mean, do you really anticipate Bugs Bunny-level wordplay in a film that also features homeless people being burned to death?) Also, I was utterly perplexed as to why anybody thought this was something that should happen in a movie, ever:
On the left. That's hair.You see, at one point, his wacky Asian best friend smears some of the solution "down there" just to see what will happen, and we're treated to this horrifying image. (He wills it to stop growing eventually, so this doesn't become a major plot element, but this one glimpse of this scenario would have been bad enough.)The Good Points:
It gets a bit dark (as you probably gathered from the comments about child abduction, etc. etc). I debated whether or not to list that as a bad point or a good point, and finally decided on "good" -- because I think that modern children's movies are far too soft, being afraid to have real villains, real stakes and real tension. There is nothing in this film that will give a child permanent psychological damage (except, maybe, that screen capture above). And, for that matter, I think kids developing fears of going into sketchy burnt-out buildings and of people who drive up in vans and attempt to abduct them is a good thing. The music is pretty good. (Apparently film this was Celine Dion's big break? And no, I'm not kidding about that.)It keeps you guessing! (Did I already mention that it was impossible to figure out what was going to happen next in this film?)I almost don't know what to say about this movie. I will say this, though; even though large parts of it didn't make sense at all, it was actually a pretty entertaining film. We never, ever knew what was going to happen next. I would actually own a copy of this film and re-watch it. So, in the end, it's definitely recommended... with the stipulation that you have to be in the mood for a really sketchily made, confusing, kind of bad kid's movie -- that nevertheless has a lot of entertainment value.
But what was this movie ultimately about? Was it about conquering your fears and shame? Was it about the cruelty of childhood? About missing your parents when they're away? The value of a good education? The notion that artists don't make good parents? Was it a comedy? A drama? Or is it just the summit of Canadian filmmaking? The answer: It's about all of that and more.
