Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

Of all the films that John Hughes wrote, produced, or directed, perhaps none of them are remembered as fondly as Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (though The Breakfast Club certainly has its own following). His chronicling of a day in the life of a free-wheeling teenager determined to take in life before it passes him by speaks to a societal and cultural yearning for freedom while never going overboard with its humorous or dramatic elements. It’s not perfect and parts of it haven’t aged as well as others but there is a purity to this film that time and cynicism have not tarnished.

Rather than spend the day in school, senior Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick) hacks his school’s computer system to give his attendance record one more absence to take advantage of and still graduate. He drafts his best friend Cameron (Alan Ruck) to help spring Ferris’s girlfriend Sloane (Mia Sara) from school so the three can spend a day taking in all that downtown Chicago has to offer. Not everyone falls for the much beloved Ferris’s tricks though, as his sister Jeanie (Jennifer Grey) tries to expose her brother’s lies and the school principal (Jeffry Jones) seeks to finally catch his nemesis breaking the rules.

I think this film is the best piece of work by John Hughes because it is one of his most restrained films (despite its indulgence in all kinds of antics). There are certain elements that let you know if you are watching an 80s era John Hughes film. Is it a kind of coming-of-age film? Are most of the young people in it smart, aware, and blessed with plenty of witty dialogue? Is at least one of the young characters working through difficult parental relations issues? If all of these three ingredients are present, along with a catchy soundtrack, then you are probably watching a John Hughes film.

The interesting difference about this film is that Ferris doesn’t go through any formative changes. He’s the same person at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. He ends up with a better relationship with his sister and his friend Cameron but that’s because those two characters are the ones who change over the course of the film. His sister comes to terms with her disdain for Ferris on her own and Cameron decides to stand up for himself after minimal coaching from Ferris. What’s unusual is that these changes happen on the periphery; Cameron’s by a partial meltdown and Jeanie’s via a deep conversation with a punk in a police station. Usually, Hughes’s main character (or the main ensemble cast) goes through some kind of transition that slows the film down and adds a smarmy aw-shucks moment that is somewhat out of place with everything else.

Thanks to his sister’s turnaround though, Ferris manages to avoid taking responsibility for his actions, allowing his wink-and-a-nod lifestyle to continue into whatever future awaits him. Unlike most young adults, we never see Ferris facing the reality that he has to grow up, which makes us question if we can live in a similar spirited way. Does it give us hope that such an existence is possible as an adult? The message of the film is, to quote Ferris, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you might miss it.” To have that spoken to us by a character makes us wonder if we have been missing it. That’s a powerful takeaway from a teen comedy and one that has been exploited by inferior teen comedies ever since.

I think one of the things that help hold this film together is the decision to break the fourth wall. If Ferris was not allowed to talk to us and fill us in on his take on the things and people around him, he would not come across as a genuine person. Left in the confines of a strict third-person perspective, audiences would view Ferris as an obnoxious slacker who thinks he is enlightened and somehow superior to everyone else. Because Ferris is allowed to interact with us, and does so in such a welcoming and honest manner, audiences bond with him and get emotionally invested in what some would otherwise find to be an unlikeable character.

Matthew Broderick is another key ingredient to this film’s success. Broderick has a very every-man look to him that suits the needs of the character. If Ferris doesn’t look just right, the audience won’t buy in. Broderick looks like the kind of teenager who could float between groups. He’s not too attractive, too weird looking, too nerdy, too pompous, too muscular, or too skinny. But Broderick doesn’t just look the part; he acts the part perfectly. He somehow combines the sarcasm of a teenager, the wisdom of adulthood, and the warmth of a good friend into one person. If you’ve seen even just a few teen comedies, you know that this balance is rare.

I could be wrong in thinking this film is timeless. What does the current generation (aka high school and college students) think of this film? When I was a senior in college, this movie was still popular among freshmen but is that still the case? Sure, kids will probably enjoy the idea of taking a day off to do whatever they want, but will they appreciate more than just the concept of this film?

In this post-Occupy Wall Street era that we live in, can a spoiled, rich, know-it-all white kid from the posh suburbs serve as a protagonist and become a cultural icon? I doubt it and that leads me to believe that Ferris Bueller’s Day Off will lose a healthy percentage of its popularity with each successive generation. Most of that drop-off will be due to the fact that kids don’t pay attention to weekend movies on TV anymore and are growing up with little to no appreciation of what came before the cultural influences they view to be important.

Fortunately, there will always be a minority in each generation willing to look back at what influenced the present. Those lucky few will discover Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and be thankful that they did.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Exorcist* (1973)

Going into this film, I knew it was renowned for being intense and scary. I had also seen numerous references and parodies of key scenes in other movies and on TV. What is amazing is that none of this knowledge came to the front of my brain while watching The Exorcist. That speaks to just how strong this film is.

Washington D.C. native Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) notices increasingly strange behavior from her daughter Regan (Linda Blair). Fits of violence, swearing, and more lead Chris to seek medical help for the girl. When the doctors come up empty-handed, exorcism is suggested. The task is given to a duo of priests-one a weak-in-faith young man (Jason Miller) and the other much older and with personal experience with the supernatural (Max von Sydow). The quest to heal Regan pushes all parties involved to the breaking point.

This movie pushed me pretty far as well. It starts off slow and confusing (the elder priest is in the Middle East and finds relics of a demon he cast out of another person long ago) but the rest of the film is fantastic. Regan doesn’t pull a sudden 180 on us. Her possession is gradual, ratcheting up the creepiness a little bit at a time. Some modern viewers may balk at her possession stemming from experimenting with a Ouija board but I am fine with it. Getting no explanation for the possession would be scarier but also harder to digest.

Linda Blair deserves every word of praise she ever received for her performance. To be perfectly honest, it’s a wonder she wasn’t permanently scarred emotionally and psychologically from making this film because she does many things that I cannot imagine asking a child to do for a film. I know it is not her voice saying such vile things during the exorcism sequence but it all looks legit. The way she throws her body around and contorts her face is jaw-dropping.

This film impacts an audience because (as I’ve said numerous times before) human beings are hardwired to be troubled by seeing children in danger. The Exorcist resonates especially with me as a parent. I would do anything to protect my little girl, so I can understand the fear and anxiety exhibited by Burstyn’s mother character.

The underlying battle of science vs. faith is intriguing. The young priest called on to help Regan has been taught by the church that demonic possession is not real and just a combination of psychological and physiological issues. Experience tells the elder priest otherwise, making it interesting to watch Miller’s character confront something he was told not to believe in. It raises the question- are advancements in science and medicine blocking mankind from believing in the spiritual forces of evil?

You’ve seen the parodies, the references, and allusions. Even if you’ve never seen this film before, chances are that you know what ultimately happens. However, The Exorcist is a powerful piece of evidence to the saying ‘it’s not about the destination; it’s about the journey.’ No matter how prepared you think you are to watch this film, it will catch you off guard. The Exorcist is one of the most genuinely unsettling films I have ever watched. For me, that says a lot.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

Here is another case of a fun and engaging story striking it rich at the box office, leaving Hollywood execs dreaming of repeat business with a sequel. The first Home Alone was a delightful romp through one child’s chaotic misadventures of surviving on his own and defending his home. Familiarity doesn’t quite breed contempt this second go around but a change in location isn’t nearly enough to keep Home Alone 2 fresh.

Once again, the McCallister family is travelling for Christmas, only this time they remember to bring Kevin to the airport with them. This small victory turns into defeat when Kevin gets on the wrong plane, ending up in New York City instead of Miami. Once there, he crosses paths with Harry and Marv, the dim-witted bandits he thwarted a year earlier. Kevin must rely on his wits and ingenuity to prevent the Wet Bandits from robbing a toy store and exacting their revenge upon him.

This sequel has plenty of humorous moments but at least half of the laughs stem from the formula laid out in the first film. The writers avoid a total retread by changing up a few pieces of the formula but Home Alone 2 looks a lot like its predecessor if you put it in outline form. Kevin gets separated from his family (this time Kevin is not actually at home), tricks people with movie clips and props, and sets up a series of elaborate traps to thwart the bad guys. Our protagonist also finds time to make friends with and learn a lesson from someone who is scary at first glance.

The centerpiece of this film, as with the original, is Kevin’s funhouse of carnage. This time around, Kevin sets up shop in an empty house undergoing renovations. This change to the formula is innocent enough to be believable but it also allows the writers to escalate the severity of Kevin’s traps because the house is already halfway torn apart and does not need cleaned up after the chaos is over. Almost every single trap sees Harry and Marv enduring physical trauma that would either incapacitate or kill a real person. Where I was supposed to laugh, I sometimes found myself cringing at the injuries that I knew a real person would sustain. For me, the film crossed the line where comedic violence ceases to be comedic.

In the first film, Kevin learned a lesson about the importance of family. This time around, the lesson is about the importance of friendship via a homeless pigeon lady in Central Park. This subplot is a stiff and forced version of Kevin’s befriending of Old Man Marley in the original film. Whereas the Marley developments were sappy but acceptable, it is glaringly obvious that the pigeon lady sequences are there to add some form of emotional depth to the film. We all know that people just want to see Kevin humiliate a bunch of sad-sack criminals. This time around, the John Hughes-penned heartwarming moments are just hollow, unwelcome distractions.

If you liked the original Home Alone, you probably won’t protest about much of what’s in this sequel. Kevin McCallister is still the same cute, clever, sassy kid we met before and the slapstick comedy of Harry and Marv still elicits a few chuckles and laughs. If you look closely, you’ll find out just how much of Lost in New York is repackaged goods but it’s still not a bad comedy sequel. A little disappointing for sure but still a safe distance from the bottom of the pile.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Misson: Impossible III (2006)

After the qualitative dud that was John Woo’s Mission: Impossible II, it’s a wonder that Paramount was even willing to entertain the notion of a third installment. Then again, the sequel put up good numbers at the box office and Tom Cruise was still a force to be reckoned with on the big screen. With director J.J. Abrams bringing his knack for savvy intrigue to the table, the end result is a whirlwind of a film that grips you more than either of its predecessors.

No longer an active field agent, IMF member Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) spends his time training new agents while hiding his job and past from his fiancé. When one of his former pupils is captured, IMF calls on hunt to rescue her. When the mission fails, Hunt is dragged deeper down the rabbit hole and goes full-on active duty again. Hunt and his new team must find a way to prevent a ruthless arms dealer named Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) from acquiring a mysterious super weapon, sniff out a mole inside IMF, and keep Hunt’s wife out of danger.

Fans of the TV show Mission: Impossible have long complained about the film series and I am sure that any of those fans who saw M:I 3 did plenty of bellyaching. Perhaps Abrams drew from his work on Alias to form the foundation of the spy antics of this film. Gone is most of the long-winded exposition of how the plan is supposed to go down. In its place is a frantic pace and high-octane set pieces that grip you tight. Some fans of the series will find this approach refreshing while others may feel Abrams sold M:I out and emulates the secret agent mechanics of James Bond, Jason Bourne, and Jack Bauer. While the format does make this film harder to remember, I still found myself refreshed.

Abrams has been unafraid to take an unorthodox approach to his work on television and he is similarly unafraid to be unorthodox here. During what would normally be the key set piece of the film, in which Ethan Hunt breaks into a highly secure Chinese research center at the top of a dizzying skyscraper, the audience sees nothing. Rather than watch the frenzied smash-and-grab sequence, we wait outside with Hunt’s partners wondering what on earth is going on in there. Even the item he is grabbing, the Rabbit’s Foot, is never explained; it is simply something both our protagonist and antagonist want to get their hands on. It’s a total MacGuffin but the spy/thriller genre has always utilized that sort of plot device.

Because Hunt’s team members have been interchangeable over three films, the success or failure of M:I 2 and M:I 3 really lies with the villain. The first film introduced us to the determined and heroic Ethan Hunt, so emphasis on villain was minimal (and we didn’t know who the real villain was for much of the film). The villain in M:I 2 was a clichéd rouge agent. Mission: Impossible III features the most intense villain yet and Philip Seymour Hoffman deserves every word of praise he received for his performance. His character is so intelligent, resourceful, and vicious enough to make audiences feel that no one is safe. The level of ferocity that Hoffman injects into the film raises the stakes and helps make the break-neck pace feel warranted.

The plot itself may be forgettable but I walked away from this film marveling at how exciting it was. It boasts an excellent villain, slick directing, and a flurry of intense action sequences. In short, this is the kind of stuff we should expect from a spy flick. It’s not as convoluted as the original and not bogged down with the silly and intricate choreographed violence of M:I 2. It’s a fine cat-and-mouse game and stands, in my mind, as the best of the three M:I films thus far. It is also easily the most underrated film in the series. If M:I 2 turned you off to the series, do yourself a favor and check this one out. Chances are you won’t be disappointed.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

2012 (2009)

Michael Bay may be the master of blowing things up in Hollywood, but when your script calls for apocalyptic destruction on a global scale, look no further than Roland Emmerich. Love him or hate him, Emmerich has created special-effects heavy disaster popcorn flicks for a generation. If you are looking for big, dumb action, then this film is nearly perfect. If you are looking for an engaging disaster flick with believable human drama, well, let me remind you that this is a Roland Emmerich film.

In 2009, geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) discovers that neutrinos from major solar flare activity are baking the Earth’s core. He estimates that within three years, this will cause the Earth’s crust to destabilize and the poles to shift, causing global destruction. Three years later, science-fiction writer and limo driver Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) scrambles to save his children, his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend (Thomas McCarthy) from the end of the world. Along the way, secrets are uncovered, revealing who knew what, when they knew it, and how world leaders planned to survive the cataclysm.

There are some obvious missteps throughout this film. Right off the bat, you don’t hire John Cusack to be your everyman-turned-apocalypse-hero if you want your film to be believable. Second, if you’re going to tear the world apart, make sure you do so in a consistent and believable way. Is half of what we’re seeing even physically or geologically possible? Finally, divvy up the action between a few different groups of people. By the end of this film everyone in the audience will balk at all the coincidence and lucky timing that brought Jackson and his family through so many intense and crazy sequences unscathed. It is simply a pill that cannot be swallowed.

If nothing else, 2012 is frustrating to watch because I quickly saw enormous amounts of potential in the story. This is a broad, sweeping epic that would make for a great miniseries or even a full-on TV show if it were to be done correctly. Instead, every single plot line and story arc is rushed and condensed to fit an all-too-confining 158-minute runtime. While it seems strange to say that two and a half hours is not enough time to tell a story, it is definitely the case with 2012.

Many of the characters have solid foundations even if they are saddled with disaster clichés and stereotypes. You’ve got the family man trying to survive, a scientist trying to help humanity any way he can, and several colorful supporting characters that grow on you over the course of the film. This makes it all the more irritating when some of these folks die toward the end. If you’re going to spend two hours warming us up to annoying but appreciable characters, don’t kill them off to serve the obvious conclusion. In the 21st century, it should be okay to mix things up a little with who lives and who dies, especially when these characters have promise in a post-disaster world.

2012 is a film that tries to do too much. At its core, it strives to be a straightforward disaster drama. This goal is undermined by too many of the illogical character decisions and occurrences that plague the sub-genre. It even gives up on being a straight drama at times by throwing in silly gags and deaths intended to draw chuckles from the typical summer audience crowd. I would easily trade much of the CGI disaster stuff in this film for a tense conspiracy thriller about the chilling behind-the-scenes lottery that selects which of the world’s richest and most powerful have the clout and money to survive impending doom while the rest of the world is kept in the dark.

There is enough bad CGI, acting, and writing in this film to make you wonder why my rating is as high as it is. But I assure you that outlining all the best parts of this film leaves you with the framework for something potentially great. It's too bad 2012 turns out to be another case of a great concept ruined by terrible execution.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

Tron (1982)

The geek in me went nuts for this film. As someone who grew up without photorealistic video games at the mall arcade or my uncle’s Nintendo, Tron looks very much like my childhood gaming experience come to life. The story may be far-fetched and character motivations suspect, but the computer world seen here is perfectly realized.

Software engineer and video game designer Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is out to prove that a rival programmer (David Warner) stole his designs. To prove it, Flynn breaks into his former place of employment to hack the mainframe and find the evidence. The mainframe, called Master Control Panel (MCP for short) fights back by blasting Flynn with an experimental laser. This digitizes Flynn and brings him inside the computer world. As Flynn seeks a way out of his digital prison, he joins a band of computer programs that resist the MCP’s tyrannical thirst for power and control over the entire world’s computer systems.

When it comes to movies, I am all about understanding context. Sometimes I fail in that quest but I always try to understand a film and its impact as of its release date. Needless to say, many of the visual effects in Tron blew me away. Most are obviously dated now, but only a few of them look really bad by today’s standards. A few still look impressive yet today. Younger audiences will probably have a harder time appreciating this film because you have to understand what 80s and early 90s games looked like. Everyone else in the know will appreciate just how the filmmakers conceptualized a 1980s inside-the-computer world.

Are there problems? Sure. Flynn is really only interested in proving that he was ripped off. The only reason he joins the resistance movement is because he has to in order to find a way back to his world. Sure, he comes to appreciate the conflict against the MCP but that’s really only because it has it out for him. There is never an emotional attachment between Flynn and the program characters he meets along the way. There is a similar emotional disconnect between the computer world characters and the audience. The program characters never act human enough for us to be truly concerned about them.

Throughout the film, I found many elements that appear in later films. I was particularly struck by how similar this film was in many ways to The Matrix. Flynn is very much Neo, able to manipulate the computer world because he is special (in Flynn’s case, he is a ‘user’ or non-program). For a film that has largely been relegated to the cult-classic bin, Tron’s influence on later sci-fi is undeniable.

Tron continues to be an innovative and dazzling film. The pace lags at times but those slow points allow sci-fi geeks like me to examine the technical aspects of the film more deeply. It may not appeal to general audiences en mass, but it is a smart, daring film that is perfect for those who don’t mind veering off the beaten track of Hollywood blockbusters, Oscar bait, and formulaic genre flicks. As tempted as I am to nudge this film’s rating higher, I have to shrug off my personal bias and give it a fair score because there are a few bugs in Tron’s system.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Dinosaur (2000)

If you ever wondered what the adult dinosaurs were doing during The Land Before Time, here’s your answer. A massive and expensive undertaking that features real backgrounds and CGI dinosaurs, this film aimed to be something of an industry game changer. It may have hit pay dirt, but this film understandably lands with something between a thud and a flop on Disney’s all-time best list.

A family of Cretaceous-era lemurs adopt an Iguanodon hatchling abandoned during a Carnotaurus attack. As an adult, Aladar and his adopted family flee extinction when an asteroid collides with the Earth, causing widespread devastation. Herbivores of all species band together in a quest to find the Nesting Place, a valley unscathed by the recent cataclysm. Romance and conflict arises between the different personalities in the make-shift herd as they struggle for survival against the elements as well as roaming carnivores.

Survival, a mix of dinosaurs, and a rumored safe haven- that is the exact same framework as The Land Before Time, leaving Dinosaur with quite the uphill climb. The folks at Disney also don’t do themselves any favors by cramming this film full of cuteness, cheesy jokes, and a whole lot of clichéd ‘together we can do this’ rhetoric. Predictable as the film may be, it is not a total lost cause.

At times, the visuals in this film blew me away. After doing some digging, I found out that Disney filmed many exotic real world locales for backgrounds and superimposed their CGI dinosaurs into it. That explains why some sequences looked so impressive for a CGI film- it wasn’t all CGI. The blending of the two works very well for long shots (aka wide shots) with not a lot of action. When there is a lot going on or a shot is framed pretty tight, the visuals really show their age. I think Disney was onto something pretty cutting edge and it is a shame that it still had some kinks.

There are some curiosities with this film that make me wonder how much better it could have been. Only the herbivores have voices and personalities. The carnivores are just angry monsters on a rampage. Could the film be more effective if the carnivores talked as well, or if the herbivores also lacked voices? Also, the dinosaur nerd in me can’t help but wonder if different species of herbivorous dinosaurs really lived in tandem as the pre-cataclysm scenes depict. The dino-geek in me does, however, commend the film for keeping non-Cretaceous animals out of the film. An Iguanodon makes for a very vanilla protagonist, but at least he is surrounded by era-accurate dinosaurs.

Dinosaur is a difficult film to place amongst Disney’s other animated features because it is so very different. It completely splits away from any of the Disney formulas, which should make it refreshing. All of Disney’s other PG-rated films have suffered for one reason or another but Dinosaur feels like its biggest flaw is that it came too soon. With all the advancements in CGI imagery even within the five years following its release, Dinosaur could have been the spectacle its filmmakers were hoping for. It would take a few re-writes and tweaks, but the potential is in there for something great.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Waitress (2007)

Here is a film that I don’t really know how to react to. The cynic in me could lash out at the fact that this film is brimming with post-Tarantino hipster pretension. The softie in me could go easy on this film because the director was murdered before it was released at Sundance. Somewhere in the middle of all this is a quiet voice asking to see this film re-made so it can better serve the audience and the director’s legacy.

Stuck in a small Southern town and held back by a controlling husband, Jenna (Kerri Russell) searches for a fresh start. She plans to use her baking skills to win a pie contest in a nearby town to win enough money to leave her loser husband (Jeremy Sisto). Rather than hold her back, an unplanned pregnancy gives her added motivation to climb the great chain of being and move on and up in life. She starts an affair with her doctor (Nathan Fillion) and puts her plan to dump her husband into motion.

Am I too moral to enjoy this story? I asked myself this question not long after Waitress concluded. I feel sympathy for Jenna because her lot in life is miserable. I am all for women being treated with respect by their husbands but I also have a hard time supporting someone who decides to have an affair. A woman overcoming her obstacles makes for a good story. Make it a pregnant woman sleeping with her married doctor and it muddies the waters enough to keep me from diving in. Even if the affair was a way for Jenna to experience joy and “love” that are otherwise absent in her life, I don’t think it was a necessary story element.

This film also rubs me the wrong way because of its characters and writing. My beef with the characters stems from what I assume to be the writer-director’s perspective. Adrienne Shelly writes from a woman’s perspective, about a woman’s perspective, for a woman’s perspective. Jenna has a core group of friends who shine with all the spunk and wit in the world, particularly impressive for a dumpy little middle-of-nowhere town.

There are no good male characters in the movie though. By good, I mean round, believable men who do not just serve as a cog in Jenna’s tale of liberation. To keep the film light, Jenna’s husband is extremely dense- almost like Lenny from Of Mice and Men. He doesn’t really want to hurt her but he lacks the common sense to see what he’s doing to her. Jenna’s doctor is handsome but aloof, charming but easily caught off guard. The owner of the restaurant Jenna works at (Andy Griffith) is your typical grouch with a heart of gold.

Perhaps I am reacting to this film the way some women react to the kinds of films that I take for granted as ‘normal.’ There are plenty of great female roles out there but how many great female supporting characters are there in a given year? Maybe Shelly intentionally made her male characters very simple and uninteresting. Maybe it was the indie-quasi-feminist in her. Maybe still she just put so much effort into creating the kind of female characters that she wanted to see in movies that she forgot to throw a bone to those of us with Y-chromosomes.

As for the writing, I have to lay some blame at Quentin Tarantino. Ever since the success of Pulp Fiction, a fair share of independent filmmakers seem to think that their quirky minds have been granted carte blanche when it comes to infusing their projects with all kinds of witty dialogue, no matter how unrealistic it sounds. Pulp Fiction was a breath of fresh air but this trend has made unrealistic but interesting dialogue almost formulaic in indie flicks. Yet, for some reason even obviously trying to be ultra-hip still gets you lauded in Hollywood. Waitress oozes with enough indie-hipster chatter that I cannot in good faith take the film seriously. These are characters that do not and cannot exist in reality. Their situations? Yes. Their conversations? No.

For me, Waitress tries too hard to make a good time out of a fairly straightforward women’s empowerment tale. Feminists will enjoy it up until a deus ex machina ending that truly allows Jenna to break free from her bonds. Adrienne Shelly is not as indulgent as Quentin Tarantino but I still feel like she’s trying too hard here. It’s a good story but the execution is over-engineered. There is enough promise in this film to keep me from dropping it lower on my rating scale, so for now I will take a largely neutral stance on it.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Lost Weekend (1945)**

In the early days of Hollywood, addiction was presented on screen either in an over-the-top manner, watered down due to the production codes of the day, or buried between the lines. It was also rare for addiction to be the focus of a film. Instead of being laughably bad or yawningly bland, The Lost Weekend is dark and uncomfortable to watch. The film retains most, if not all, of its power as it drags the audience down into the murky depths of alcoholism.

Don Birnam (Ray Milland) could be a great writer if it weren’t for booze. His girlfriend Helen (Jane Wyman) and his brother Wick (Phillip Terry) try to get him away from New York City for a weekend trip to help keep him sober. Slave to the drink that he is, Don tells them he will meet them at the train station but heads to a bar instead. Thus begins a weekend-long bender showcasing Don’s pathetic state while flashbacks clue the audience in on his relationships with Helen, Wick, and the bottle.

I’ve seen every Best Picture winner from 1927 through 1945 and I have to say that this is the first one to make me uncomfortable. The Oscars have honored several cinema gems packed with action and humor, a few duds that are boring by today’s standards, and some powerful human drama with some kind of uplifting message. In stark contrast to everything that came before it, The Lost Weekend just keeps kicking you while you’re down.

It doesn’t take long to find elements of this film that have been recycled or lampooned in later films. Milland’s mannerisms, staggered lurch down sidewalks, and frantic behavior are everywhere in cinema, which is a testament to their original power. Some of these elements may seem cheesy if viewed out of context but if you watch this film from start to finish, there’s no snickering about it.

This film is also quite emotionally draining. For much of the film you are filled with disgust and surprise at Don Birnam, as he sinks to new lows to get his fix. At the same time you are bouncing back and forth between feeling pity and anger for Helen & Wick. They put up with a lot and that gets under your skin. At times you wish they would just cut Don off and let him rot in his own mess of a life. Whatever is left of the optimist in you clings to hope though, keeping you wishing for a recovery if only for Helen’s and Wick’s sakes.

As dark and depressing as The Lost Weekend is, it is that sense of hope that keeps you going, just as in real life. The ending of this film leaves you with a lot of hope for a major change in Don but you also have to wonder how many times he’s reached this point before. It’s that fervent, right-out-of-the-gate sense of urgency and deliberateness we all have when we start a goal. It’s why gym memberships soar around New Year’s.

But, as humans, we understand all too well how easy it is to fall off whatever wagon we stand so triumphantly on. We know Don Birnam is human, yet, we hope that this time it is different. Instead of triumph, we have cautious catharsis. It is expertly wielded by the filmmakers here because it feels authentic. This whole film hits a home run in that department and, while the subject is alcoholism, audiences can easily substitute whatever addiction they understand best for Birnam’s drinking. The Lost Weekend does what few films prior and since have been able to do- it humanizes addiction in such a way that grips you but doesn’t preach to you.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

After delivering the crowd-pleasing Broken Arrow and Face/Off in the mid-90s, director John Woo was a hot commodity in Hollywood. In many ways, it made sense for him to direct this high-action sequel to 1996’s blockbuster Mission: Impossible. Unfortunately for Woo fans, this dud marked the beginning of the end of the director’s work in America and nearly killed the Mission: Impossible franchise.

Ethan Hunt’s (Tom Cruise) latest mission is recovering a fast-acting super-virus from the clutches of a rogue IMF agent before it is let loose upon the world. With the help of his team, including the rogue agent’s ex-girlfriend (Thandie Newton), Hunt learns the full details of Sean Ambrose’s (Dougray Scott) plan to profit from wreaking untold pestilence upon millions of innocents. The stakes become even higher as Hunt’s growing affection for Ambrose’s ex makes the mission personal.

John Woo’s brand of artful violence may work in Asian cinema, where mythical and larger-than-life heroes accomplish epic feats with supernatural grace and abilities. Here in America, those kinds of things are relegated to comic book movies and science fiction. While Woo doesn’t have his characters levitating, the stunts are intricate and quite often unrealistic. You can make anything look possible in the editing room but when the rest of your story is set firm in reality and normal physics, the human brain can’t help but find such frivolity suspect.

Believe it or not, all this high-flying action slows the film down. Part of this is due to the extended stunt sequences but the story shares a lot of the blame as well. The ‘bad guy threatens the world with a virus’ plot has been done before, rogue agents are nothing new, and enough movies have been made about virus epidemics that very little of M:I-2 feels original. On top of it all, there is more Tom Cruise and less team interaction than in the first film. I understand that Ethan Hunt is the main character, but this is Mission: Impossible, not James Bond.

Another drag on the film is the love triangle set up between Cruise, Newton, and Scott. I think it was crafted to help keep audience interest in an otherwise bland plot. Unfortunately, love triangles are more than a little clichéd by now and it makes the film seem more like the good guy and bad guy are fighting over the girl than the super-virus about to be released.

Where the first Mission: Impossible film was moderately intriguing, M:I-2 is little more than disappointing. It takes a unique concept and boils off the things that make it unique, leaving us with a typical Hollywood action flick with just a little bit of directorial flair. It has all the hallmarks of a John Woo film and not enough of the hallmarks of a Mission: Impossible film. If there is one to skip in the series, this one is it.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Toy Story 2 (1999)

Up to this point, sequels were a rarity for Disney. The only true sequel on the books was The Rescuers Down Under, which underperformed, and who honestly counts Fantasia 2000 as a sequel? Ordering a Toy Story sequel from Pixar must have been a very carefully calculated risk. It paid off handsomely though, as Toy Story 2 brings back everything audiences loved about the original and added even more things to love. Its status as a sequel prevents it from feeling as fresh as its predecessor, but our second romp with Buzz and Woody has plenty of pop and sizzle.

While rescuing a fellow toy from the yard sale pile, Woody is snatched up by a toy collector. Buzz and the gang set out on a rescue mission that takes them across town. Meanwhile, Woody meets new faces in the collector’s apartment and learns that he is an extremely rare and valuable toy. As a complete set, the Woody’s Roundup team will be on display for toy collectors to appreciate for years to come. Without Woody, they will be put back into storage potentially forever. This leaves Woody to wrestle with the decision to stay loyal to Andy or join his new friends on their quest for immortality.

Unlike a lot of sequels, Toy Story 2 is very good. Some people believe that this film is better than the original. They are entitled to their opinion but I disagree. The animation certainly has improved, with more detail, higher quality, and the incorporation of camera pans, zooms, and tricks found in non-animated films. The story is fresh, but it’s a little too heavy at times. Half of it is (if your honest) a retread of the first film, only this time Buzz saves Woody. The other half deals with issues that are going to go way over children’s heads.

The filmmakers don’t get nailed for the recycled rescue story because Buzz brings along a number of the other toys. This gives the supporting characters and voice actors plenty of time to shine as they struggle to work together as a group. Buzz encountering another Buzz Lightyear action figure that is not yet aware that he is just a toy is amusing. Woody’s arc, however, is substantially less fun. The new characters of Jessie, Bullseye, and Stinky Pete provide an interesting perspective as collectibles but they deal with and discuss issues that are very adult. Immortality, rejection, duty- all of these are heavyweight philosophical concepts that kids can only scratch the surface of understanding.

It certainly looks better but Toy Story 2 is not the feel-good tale that the original was. At times it is a steady gut-puncher that makes older kids and sappy, nostalgic adults feel guilty about giving up on their beloved childhood toys. Or is it really an allegory for how we treat other people? If so, Toy Story 2 is perhaps the darkest kids’ flick of all time. Therein rests the kicker. When I watch a movie billed as family-friendly entertainment and targets hard towards children, I don’t want to watch something designed to make me feel bad. That’s what European cinema is for.

Pixar delivers a fun, albeit outlandish, adventure that straddles the line between kids’ and grown-up entertainment. The development of Toy Story 2 was rushed, which might explain why there is a lot of polish overtop of a slightly weaker story. This review may sound very negative but I did indeed enjoy this film. If you loved the original Toy Story, this sequel is like an old pair of shoes that you can slip right into without any adjustment period. Sit back and enjoy.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The Goonies (1985)

Children of the 80s and early 90s grew up watching this Steven Spielberg-penned film as a rite of passage. If you managed to grow up without seeing at least part of this film on weekend movie marathons on TV, you are the exception to the rule. As with many coming of age tales, The Goonies has its share of avid fans, though few of them are probably under the age of 30 now. It received mixed reviews upon its release in 1985 but childhood nostalgia has trumped this fun little flick up to be a spectacle that has to be seen.

The Goonies are a group of teenagers living in Astoria, Oregon. Usually they are wandering around town looking for adventures and mysteries but a golf course developer has their families’ houses in foreclosure, leaving them to pack up and move. While checking the attic, Mikey Walsh (Sean Astin) and his friend Clark (Corey Feldman) discover an old Spanish treasure map pointing the way to the treasure trove of the fabled One-Eyed Willie. This sets the Goonies on one last mission that could save their houses, if the criminal Fratelli Family doesn’t find the treasure first.

Don’t be fooled by Richard Donner as the director. This film has all the hallmarks of a Spielberg 80s flick. We’ve got kids facing issues with their parents and other adults who just don’t understand, peer pressure, danger, adventure, and a few easily-outsmarted bad guys. These are the basic ingredients that coming-of-age, young adult/family films continue to be made of. The transparency of it all is the kicker, and shows the film’s age. These kind of simplistic devices and plots worked for kids of the 80s, who found themselves huge targets of Hollywood studios. The Goonies could only be made now if it were an intentional spoof of 80s family flick clichés.

So what keeps modern audiences from rolling their eyes at this film? It’s got a lot of heart and it is genuinely fun to watch. Yes, your brain is going to tell you that some of what you see is preposterous, but those of us old enough to appreciate pre-90s kitsch will understand that this is how family-friendly films were made before society grew so cynical and dependent on CGI. There is a lot of formula at play here but perhaps it is the amount of outlandishness heaped atop that formula that helps The Goonies feel so fresh.

It has to be tough working with so many young actors because the craft of acting and making a story believable is hard enough for adults to do half of the time. The cast is helped by Spielberg’s script full of spot-on teen emotions. As silly as the plot may be, the characters all feel like they could be real people. Okay, maybe that’s a stretch for Data, the wacky inventor of the bunch, but everyone else feels like they could exist in real life.

The story is told through a subjective lens, not a true third-person experience. Adults are portrayed the way teens oftentimes see them- boring, slow-to-understand, or just plain in the way. Perhaps that is why this film resonates so much with so many people. It was laid out in terms that kids could understand. Is it the best movie ever? Heck no. Nostalgia has totally overrated The Goonies. That doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyed each and every time you catch it on TV.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Going My Way** (1944)

This is far from the first Best Picture winner to leave me wondering what the Academy saw in it to make it worthy of its highest award. It features Bing Crosby, one of the hottest entertainers of the time, crooning and meandering his way through a tale of kindness and redemption. Maybe it was the allure of Crosby’s charm. Maybe it was a weak year for films. While Going My Way is not an inferior film by any means, it doesn’t exactly light up the screen these days.

Father Charles O’Malley (Bing Crosby) is assigned to a financially struggling church in New York City. The elder priest of the church, Father Fitzgibbon (Barry Fitzgerald), does not approve of O’Malley’s nonchalant attitude and his lack of strict, conservative Catholicism. Rather than look down upon the sins of others or look the other way for regular mass attendees, O’Malley inserts himself into their lives. By seeking to understand and make a difference, O’Malley shakes the foundation of the parish and the lives of those around him.

This is a nice story about a likeable new guy in town who mixes things up for the better. Most, if not all the supporting characters are enjoyable. What Going My Way lacks is wow factor. It’s a solid little film but it’s also the kind of heart-warming ‘rise-above’ sort of yarn that has become clichéd and predictable. That’s not the fault of anyone involved with this film. Rather, all the half-baked feel-good flicks over the decades have numbed our senses to these kinds of inspiring tales.

Praise is due to Bing Crosby for not being as stiff as some singers-turned-actors have been. Then again, Crosby was more than just a singer- he was an entertainer. He and other crossover artists had more presence and charisma than most of the compartmentalized stars of today. Sure, they made records, but they also performed to smaller audiences, not just stadiums. Stars like Crosby knew how to work a room and that helps when the time comes to work the camera.

The people behind the camera, however, are another story. The director may have won awards, but there isn’t much in the way of visual stimulation to be found here. I counted a number of static shots where the cast has to move about. There are still elements of composition to this set up- people still need to hit their marks and be placed just right- but it’s not as visually interesting to watch people move about without moving with them. It’s old school Hollywood and perhaps I shouldn’t complain, but I’ve seen much more daring directorial decisions in films around and before Going My Way’s release.

This film will probably continue to be known for as long as there are avid admirers of Bing Crosby’s work. Without Crosby front and center (and that Oscar win), this film would have been forgotten about in fairly short order. It’s a charming, nice, safe film that will entertain those of us who enjoy classic cinema, but nothing outside of its casting possesses that legendary quality that demands it be watched.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Can this film really be considered a sequel? If so, it probably marks the longest time between a film and its sequel in film history. The original Fantasia was conceived by Walt Disney to showcase how animation really could achieve high-art status. With no need to doubt those lofty goals anymore, Fantasia 2000 feels more like a recycled idea that fails to build on its predecessor.

Of the eight shorts that comprise Fantasia 2000, only four of them are clearly memorable to me. One of these is “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” or the one short from the original Fantasia that people still recognize today. It’s the exact same short that appeared in 1940, so I have to completely disregard its presence in order to grade the film’s new contributions. It only makes sense to me to base my rating on the merits of what is new. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” is a masterpiece of a short but its inclusion almost feels lazy to me. It’s as if Disney threw it in to give people a reason to see the film in the first place.

The animation to George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” is the standout. It depicts a bustling Depression-era day in New York City and the animation is styled after Al Hirschfield’s cartoons of that time. This is the one short that lives up to what the original Fantasia set out to do- blend animation and music to artistically express life and emotion.

Donald Duck shows up toward the end of the film as Noah in “Pomp and Circumstance.” It’s amusing to watch him struggle with the ark and all the animals on board but it lacks the wow factor of “Rhapsody in Blue.” The only other notable short is “Pines of Rome.” It features a family of humpback whales who end up being able to fly. This piece was used heavily in marketing the film but all it really amounts to is “oh, and there were some flying whales.”

It is interesting that Disney went on to have much more success in the new millennium with computer animated tales (the most successful of which coming from Pixar). Could Fantasia 2000 be seen as traditional animation's last gasping attempt to assert its relevance? Yes, but I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Traditional animation is far from dead; it just fails to wow the eyes and minds of today’s audiences like CGI can.

Fantasia 2000 is every bit the risky experiment that Fantasia was in 1940. It is a bold proposition to ask audiences to sit through some arty shorts. This time around, there is no urgency in the mission. Fantasia 2000 functions more as nostalgia for the original and other Disney shorts of yesteryear. This film runs much shorter than its predecessor but it still feels as if time drags while you watch it. The animation is crisp but there is no big draw here. It may be far from pointless, but this feels like a film without much of a purpose. I recommend it only for the most hard-core Disney fans.

RATING: 3 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Psycho (1960)

I watched a lot of horror and slasher films as a teenager. When I watched Psycho for the first time in college, it didn’t register very much with my moderately desensitized brain. It wasn’t scary and I thought it was a little boring. A few years later, I watched it again. By that time I was paying more attention to the craft of filmmaking and appreciated older films much more. Needless to say, my rating took a hefty jump.

A few years after my second viewing, I had the opportunity to watch Psycho again with my wife. She does not like horror movies but I managed to convince her that she wouldn’t be grossed out. After all, this was a film from 1960. Just like Vertigo, this is a fun film to watch with someone who has never seen it and doesn’t know about any of its plot twists.

My wife found Norman Bates creepy but never overly dangerous. She managed to put two and two together before the surprise ending but that didn’t make it any less uncomfortable. That is where the power of Psycho rests- everything about it is unsettling. Both the content of the film and its structure are designed to disarm you and prevent you from slipping into an ordinary film-going experience.

It really takes a second or third viewing to appreciate the character of Norman Bates. Your first time watching, you are so bent on figuring out what is going on that you fail to see the finer details Anthony Perkins has on display. At first glance, his body movements, mannerisms, and glances throw off an unnerving vibe but only enough to make Norman seem a little off. Everybody knows somebody who seems a little off, which makes Norman odd but not too unusual. Repeat viewings reveal the subtle menace in his stance, eyes, and words. They chide us for not picking up on those signs before while simultaneously inviting us to relish in the evil residing within our antagonist.

If Norman Bates is only a little unnerving the first time you watch Psycho, the structure is apt to jar you outright. We start out the film following Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) on the lam after stealing money from her employer’s client. After getting to know her over the first half of the movie, our supposed main character is killed. Focus then shifts to Norman Bates as he tries to cover up Marion’s murder. While this tactic may not be as unique anymore, it had to be shocking at the time.

Also worth noting is that Psycho is a very realistic film, one in which many of the characters live morally gray lives. It’s up to you whether or not you want to feel sympathy for Marion. Was her stealing justified? Does her decision to redeem herself before her demise add any sympathy or is it inconsequential? Is her death punishment for her sins or is it a random tragedy? That’s just one character. There are several others in Psycho that get you asking all kinds of questions. That’s about as real as fiction can get right there.

Psycho may have been a victim to my immature mind back in college, but I have redeemed myself over the years, bumping it higher and higher with each subsequent viewing. Has it reached its peak on my rating scale? Only time will tell, but I cannot honestly envision it getting much higher. Psycho stands out as a classic film but even Norman Bates is no match for some of the films higher on my rating scale. Regardless, the film has finally reached my highest rating category- great.

Original Rating: 3 out of 5

Revised Rating: 3.75 out of 5

New Rating: 4 out of 5

Mission: Impossible (1996)

I’ve come to find it refreshing to have no connection to certain films’ source material. My only connection to Mission: Impossible is that I know the theme music from the TV show. With no limitations or biases getting in the way of processing this film for what it is, I can say with a clear conscience that this film is convoluted but very entertaining.

Tom Cruise stars as Ethan Hunt, a member of the top secret Impossible Missions Force (IMF), whose team is wiped out during a botched mission to intercept a data file that contains the aliases of many undercover operatives around the world. The job, it turns out, was a setup to draw out a suspected mole. As the lone survivor of his team, the government brands him a traitor and Hunt is thrust into his most difficult mission yet- clearing his name.

If you boil it down to its framework, Mission: Impossible is a spy thriller built around three scenes- the opening job gone wrong, the Langley job (where Cruise dangles in mid-air by a harness), and the climactic train sequence. That’s really all you’re going to remember and for good reason. The job is the only thing that matters; it’s the payoff. All the planning and exposition that comes before each job only exists to help the job itself make sense. The filmmakers may have gone overboard on a few things but it’s all still great fun to watch.

Just like its main character, Mission: Impossible succeeds through a combination of coincidence, luck, and skill. You can debate which ingredient is in greater supply all you want, but all three are in there. Your opinion on this matter depends on your level on cynicism and your ability to not overanalyze a summer popcorn flick.

I liked Vanessa Redgrave’s character. It was a nice twist for a sought-after international criminal to be female. James Bond has the market on egomaniacal men, so kudos to the filmmakers for not being lazy there. Unfortunately, this break from stereotype doesn’t make up for a weak motive by the shadows-lurking villain who’s been trying to frame Ethan Hunt all along.

All things considered, Mission: Impossible is the kind of movie you say ‘sure, why not’ to. It’s nothing to get too excited about but it’s always fun to watch those three tent-pole scenes play out. It will never be considered a classic but it fills the hearts of people my age with nostalgia for the early to mid-90s, when there was still a middle ground between awesome and suck for summer blockbusters.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Tarzan (1999)

Having never read any of Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Tarzan books doesn’t really matter, because most people have a general understanding about what the Ape Man is about. Often times people compare books and movies (I myself am guilty of this from time to time), which defeats the purpose of both mediums. Books and movies exist to tell stories through their own unique elements. We can try to infer what a book might be like based on a movie and we can imagine what we think a movie should be like while we read the book. You can only objectively compare books with other books and movies with other movies. With that in mind, Disney’s Tarzan calls to my mind Lady and the Tramp with sex appeal.

In the 1800s, a British couple and their baby son crash on the shores of the African jungle. After building a shelter, the parents are killed by a leopard but the boy is saved and adopted by a family of gorillas. As a young man, Tarzan saves the life of Jane, the daughter of a British explorer who has anchored offshore. With them is an aggressive game hunter named Clayton, who sets his sights on adding members of Tarzan’s gorilla family to his collection.

How do you make a pacifistic, anti-hunting story cool to your target demographic of rowdy young boys? By having Tarzan glide and slide through the jungle branches like he’s on rollerblades or a skateboard. Maybe I shouldn’t find fault with this but I can’t help myself. I don’t care how callused his feet are or how much moss covers the jungle bark; there’s no way this is remotely possible. Maybe it looks cool at first, but by the end of the movie, Tarzan does it more than enough times for the trick to get old. That’s quite an accomplishment for a movie clocking in at just under 90 minutes!

Tarzan himself is a pretty thin character, so the film really leans on its supporting cast to make the film something special. Jane looks like your typical damsel-in-distress (skinny waist accentuating her developed upper half) but she has brains, wit, and some toughness to help satisfy feminists and cynics alike. The other human characters are generic. Jane’s father feels like a retread of the scatter-brained Maurice and Clayton an oversimplified version of Gaston (both from Beauty and the Beast). Tarzan’s animal friends, for all their modern wit and dialogue, feel like a weak attempt to recreate the magic of The Jungle Book.

As for the usual Disney elements, Tarzan comes up about even. The animation shows signs of progress in blending CGI and traditional animation, but some shots are overdone. Without a big musical hit in a couple of years, Disney pulled out all the stops and signed Phil Collins to write the music. Some of the songs are used as background tracks, rather than being sung by the characters. It sets a mood but the music never really grips you. I hope that is an objective observation and not my indifference for Phil Collins surfacing. The music may have won awards, but I don’t view any of the tunes as among Disney’s best.

As you may suspect, I am wholly indifferent to this film. There is nothing wrong with it per se; it just doesn’t do it for me. It’s loud, colorful, and perfectly fine for entertaining the kids but Disney magic seems to be in short supply in Tarzan. It’s hard to say who is at fault for this. It could be the source material or it could be the Disney treatment of said source material. In the end, it is a tolerable, largely well-made animated film that I will probably watch with my daughter only if she suggests it.

RATING: 3 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Vertigo (1958)

There is something pleasing about watching a master at work. I originally rated this film back when I was in college. Re-watching it all these years later with my wife (who hadn’t seen it before) was a real treat. A modern comparison would be watching The Sixth Sense with someone who doesn’t know what’s coming. But that doesn’t do Vertigo any justice.

Because of how much time had passed between viewings, I had forgotten so many of the nuances that keep this film interesting. Vertigo is a film that creeps along its winding path at a slow but steady pace. There are very few of the ‘gotcha’ moments that fill contemporary suspense thrillers. In fact, Vertigo is almost purely suspense. The thrill comes at the end when you realize what you just experienced.

Hitchcock peppers his film with just enough peculiarity to prevent audiences from slipping into boredom. As events play out, you can’t help but wish things would move along quicker but at the same time you are engrossed by all the details that might be important. In the first half, you are constantly caught off guard by what comes next. The build-up is just so strange that it transfixes you. By the time we reach the mid-film climax, you are locked in and fully invested whatever the second half may bring.

Oh does the second half bring it! The audience is cast back into the murkiness of little details but without as much misdirection. Another revelation lets the audience in on a secret that tantalizes us as we wait for our protagonist to catch on. It’s emotionally and psychologically taxing, leaving us feeling almost as harried as the characters on screen.

I have admired James Stewart’s acting since I started taking movies seriously. He has always been such a believable presence on screen and that is very much the case in Vertigo. As an everyman ex-cop, audiences connect with Stewart because his reactions feel so genuine. His confusion, apprehension, nervousness, and frustration all echo what audiences feel while watching the film.

We don’t just watch the events of Vertigo; we experience them as if we were alongside Stewart. That kind of connection is rare and powerful. It is a doozy of a film that slowly ratchets up the tension while putting pieces together rather than yanking you from one frenetic scenario to the next. This is old-school suspense and it is a beautiful thing.

Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5

New Rating: 4.5 out of 5

The Wiz (1978)

As a middle-class white guy from the suburbs, I doubt that I can fully appreciate this film. I am certainly not a part of the main audience the filmmakers had in mind when bringing The Wiz from Broadway to the big screen. But the beauty of film is that there is (usually) something in the story or craftsmanship that everyone can enjoy, no matter how targeted the film is.

School teacher Dorothy Gale (Diana Ross) lives with her aunt and uncle in a Harlem apartment. The shy young woman seems to have no interest in leaving the place where she grew up, a quality for which she is teased by her family at Thanksgiving. When her dog Toto runs away into a snowstorm, Dorothy follows but gets caught up and whisked away to the Kingdom of Oz. In this dystopian urban environment, Dorothy makes friends with a scarecrow, tin man, and a lion, while making an enemy with the dangerous Wicked Witch of the East. Her only hope to get back home is to follow the yellow brick road to the Emerald City and seek the aid of the powerful Wizard of Oz.

The Wiz certainly is not my cup of tea and does not transcend well into my demographic background. That being said, there are a few interesting things going on here. Some of the sets are fascinating. Some scenes are shot on location in places like parking garages but the constructed sets are the best to examine. In The Wiz, the Kingdom of Oz is a mix of urban decay and wasteland. I caught myself questioning whether Oz should be so full of the familiar for Dorothy, but so was the 1939 classic version- Oz was farm fields and wilderness. Creating the dilapidated sets must have been difficult but rewarding for everyone involved.

The problems I perceive with The Wiz deal with time and age. Diana Ross clearly looks older than the 24-year-old character she portrays (she was in her mid-thirties at the time). I understand that the film needed a big-name with musical ability to headline this film, but Ross only works with a grain of salt too large for me to swallow. The inclusion of other African-American icons is useful. Not only does it round out the cast with notable names and faces (Michael Jackson, Nipsey Russell, and Ted Ross), but it brings real talent to the film.

I was impressed with Michael Jackson’s performance. Many singers cannot act but it is clear that the man was born to be an entertainer. As the brain-seeking scarecrow, his character’s message is targeted directly at urban African-American youth. While “don’t listen to them- you can be smart” is a good message, it is not one that has aged well. At the time this film was made, it probably seemed uplifting and inspirational, especially coming from Diana Ross and Michael Jackson. This far removed from the civil rights era, however, the message comes across as hokey and lacking substance.

Despite a number of laudable elements, the film as a whole has not aged well. While I just defended the film’s use of the familiar with its urban decay, this setting has a very dated feel now. Maybe it still resonates for those who live in and around decaying cities, but the sets, while looking good, fail to transcend time for me. This, along with the costumes and musical style, prevent The Wiz from standing the test of time like the 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz has. It wasn’t a wasted opportunity when it came out but it almost feels like one 30 plus years after the fact.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

A Bug's Life (1998)

This is the kind of film you get when you combine groundbreaking technology with a story that’s been told a few too many times. There is nothing wrong with A Bug’s Life, really. In fact, it stands tall as one of the better non-musical films in Disney’s arsenal of family entertainment. And yet, in only Pixar’s second full-length computer-animated film, enough of the freshness we felt in Toy Story seems to have disappeared.

Flik is tired of being a follower, which is difficult for a member of an ant colony. His creativity, inventiveness, and unfortunate clumsiness make him stand out from his peers in a bad way. When his latest invention draws the ire of greedy and hostile grasshoppers, the colony is threatened with extinction. Flik sets off to assemble a team of warriors to defend his colony, but his creativity is put to the test when all he can recruit is a team of misfit circus bugs.

A Bug’s Life has plenty of beautiful animation to its credit. It also boasts a bunch of amusing and colorful characters. The story, however, is weak. A group of misfits band together to accomplish amazing feats? Yeah, I’ve seen about a dozen or more films with the exact same plot, especially with children’s films. Because the whole story structure is recycled, it’s not hard to predict most of how this film plays out.

As many authors will tell you, however, it is not about the destination, but the journey itself. Fortunately, this film has plenty of easily-digested ingredients. What the story lacks in freshness, Pixar makes up for with another dose of visual wonder. Toy Story gave us a look at what our homes look to our toys. A Bug’s Life takes us outside and even closer to the ground. The attention to detail and exaggeration of such micro details reminds me of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. It is clear that Pixar was not about to rest on their laurels in this department, which is very encouraging.

Flik and the rest of the ants are pretty bland. The grasshoppers are mindless drones, save for their leader, Hopper (voiced by Kevin Spacey). He is intimidating at times but is understandably over-the-top with his rage. The real gems are the circus bugs. Each one has their own unique personality and that personality shows through in their physical appearance. While over-anthropomorphizing non-human characters became a problem in several computer-animated films released in the past decade, Pixar does it right here. Characters retain enough of their insect nature to be believable as bugs.

The story may leave you wanting more if you focus on it too much but if you pull back your magnifying glass just a little bit, there is no reason not to enjoy this film. Its quirks and jokes are good fun for all ages. It lacks the wow actor of Toy Story and some later Pixar films, but A Bug’s Life is certainly no sophomore slump.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Metropolis (1927)

The first time I saw this film was my sophomore or junior year in college. It was shown in a local independent movie theater and a man came in to perform a live score with the film on a Wurlitzer organ. I was awestruck. The scope of this film and the technical prowess behind it back up all the praise from industry insiders and cinephiles everywhere.

Perhaps I forgot some of the story details over the years, but watching it again recently has me wondering if I saw a different cut back in my college days. From doing a little research, I found that a new cut did come into existence around or just after I would have seen it in college because additional surviving footage was found. Specifically, the elements of the scientist creating his robot in order to destroy the city’s master, Fredersen, seemed new to me. If I recall correctly, in the version I saw in college Fredersen and the scientist worked together in order to crush Maria’s preaching to the underclass of workers.

If I did indeed see two unique cuts of the film, it speaks volumes to Fritz Lang and his crew that both are mesmerizing and equally great. I can’t even bring myself to make the argument that modern audiences might not think the special effects of Metropolis are a big deal, because I was captivated by them before I really began to understand and research film history.

Some viewers may have a hard time buying into the film’s hopelessly naïve ideal of unity between the working and ruling classes, and that is completely understandable. If you allow yourself to experience this film without reservations, however, you will be sucked in and feel like it is a triumph of the human spirit. It is, after all, a puff piece but it is packed with enough drama and action to keep you emotionally invested in the story and the characters.

Other viewers may be apprehensive of taking Metropolis in if they know of its history as a favorite film among Nazis, European socialists, and communists of pre-World War II Europe. I find this weirdly amusing because I see the film not as rich vs. poor but as party elite vs. their suppressed citizens. The upper class of Metropolis resembles almost exactly what society turns into under authoritarian socialist and communist rule. It makes you wonder if those Nazis and Soviets subconsciously longed for the unity at the ending or the division at the beginning of the film.

From a technical standpoint, Metropolis was a game changer. The inventiveness of some of the special effects is a testament to director Fritz Lang and his entire crew of filmmakers. The idealism of the story is worn boldly on Metropolis’s sleeve but I wouldn’t call it overly idealistic. Rather, it is idealism personified and committed to celluloid. For that, it is a powerful testament to the longing of the human spirit to be in balance and I respect that. It may not be as potently enjoyable as Gone with the Wind, but it comes darn close.

Original Rating: 4.75 out of 5


New Rating: 4.75 out of 5

Mulan (1998)

Technically The Jungle Book was Disney’s first full-length animated film set on the continent of Asia, but Mulan is the animation giant’s first full-length visit to the Far East. As with many of Disney’s other ‘first visits,’ this film features unique and exotic visuals. Another unfortunate similarity to some of Disney’s recent films is a story that just doesn’t make the grade.

The Han dynasty is under siege by the vicious Hun tribes from the north. The Han emperor commands every family within the kingdom send forth one male in order to assemble a grand army to resist the invaders. Fa Mulan, a young woman, bucks social norms and risks her family’s honor by disguising herself as a man to take her aging father’s place on the field of battle. The spirits of her ancestors send Mushu, a wise-cracking tiny dragon, to guide Mulan on her quest of honor and bravery.

The ancient Chinese setting brings with it some lovely scenery, backdrops, and architecture. The animators even go to great lengths to animate certain characters, animals, and objects in a style similar to ancient Chinese art- lean, sharp angles, and vivid color contrast. Disney really learned their lesson from Oliver & Company; the quality of their 2-D animation has not disappointed me since. Yet, here again I must complain about the failings of the CAPS 2-D/3-D hybrid system. The scenes where it is used still do not look right.

Upon Mulan’s release, Disney hadn’t had a musical powerhouse since The Lion King. As a casual fan of Asian instrumental music, I had hope that Mulan’s songs and score might be a breath of fresh air. Instead, we’ve got zero memorable songs and minimal effort to make the incidental music new or invigorating. In fact, an early song where girls were dressing up to impress potential suitors is just weird. The girls are singing about being beautiful and marrying a man of stature to bring honor to their families. Maybe this was done to set up Mulan as different from the sheep-like mentality of her peers, but the song turned me off and even creeps me out to think that any young girl might find it catchy and sing it while playing with her dolls.

The character of Mulan has a lot in common with Ariel from The Little Mermaid. She’s spunky and isn’t satisfied with the status quo. Her story arc will likely earn the ire of diehard feminists much in the same way Ariel did, but this is a kid’s movie after all. The villain is intimidating and powerful but he lacks presence. All he does is ride his horse, wield a big sword, and growl a lot. Flat villains are weak villains. Mushu is like a sarcastic blend of Jiminy Cricket and the Genie from Aladdin, but nowhere near as endearing as either of them. The rest of the cast is forgettable, as the heavy drama of invasion and war drown out most of the humor.

Mulan’s rise against the sexism of ancient Chinese culture relates well to the modern Western world post-women’s lib. The Chinese devotion (some would call it obsession) to honor and family spirits does not translate well, which means roughly a third of Mulan’s story arc won’t faze audiences. Coupled with a lackluster cast and a no-luster soundtrack, Mulan suffers a fate similar to The Hunchback of Notre Dame and the live-action film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; they’re all pretty to look at but ultimately boring to watch.

RATING: 3 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: How Green Was My Valley** (1941)

Does anyone really believe that this film deserved Best Picture anymore? The Academy needed a fallback film because they were too scared to recognize the masterpiece that was Citizen Kane. What gets the award instead? An emotional tale of poor Welsh coal miners that band together to fight for the right to work for a decent wage.

I must admit that this film is well made if you look at the technical aspects. It is also a very emotional film, as we watch a young boy named Huw grow up in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. The coal mines change his town and his family forever. There is also a subplot involving a new pastor in town who takes a liking to Huw’s sister and speaks controversially in support of unionizing the town’s coal miners.

How Green Was My Valley is far from pro-union propaganda, but it certainly wears its liberal-leaning heart on it sleeve. The Industrial Revolution was a time when unions were actually desperately needed to help laborers get fair wages but this sentiment is laid on thick enough to the point where it is obvious that the story also advocates for the urgency for unionization in the present. Through this and other early films, it seems clear to me that it took decades for much of Hollywood to master subtlety as a filmmaking tool.

Maybe I am jaded, having grown up thinking films like this are cliché-ridden. It’s got emotional manipulation through focusing on a child, advocacy for social change, a David v. Goliath tale, and a largely negative portrayal of Christianity. Pretty standard old-school Hollywood stuff, really. Maybe in some circles How Green Was My Valley was considered important. You’ll have a hard time justifying it as great though.

Through re-watching some of these old films, some of which I was overly harsh on as an 18 and 19-year old, I have had a kind of epiphany. There are great films, there are important films, and then there are those rare few that are both great and important. These categories are still largely subjective but, for the most part, consensus builds and opinions are collected.

Maybe the vote was split widely in the Academy. Maybe this film rode the wave of being a safe and uncontroversial pick. How Green Was My Valley may not be the weakest Best Picture winner in Oscar History but it certainly doesn’t make much of an impression. If nothing else, watch it for the curiosity that it is- a mostly harmless, well-made film that beat one of the greatest American films ever made on Oscar night.

Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5

New Rating: 3.5 out of 5

The Artist** (2011)

If it sounds weird to hear me describe a film as adorable, please know that it feels just as weird for me to make such a proclamation. Yet that is the best word I can come up with to describe this love letter to Hollywood’s silent film era. It has charm, heart, and it stays very true to the qualities and craftsmanship of the films that inspired it.

It’s 1927 in Hollywood and George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the star of the silent silver screen and helps discover a talented newcomer named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). Two years later, Valentin’s studio tells him they are through with silent films. Valentin’s reluctance to convert to talkies (and the stock market crash of 1929) leaves him in professional and financial ruin. While Peppy’s career takes off, George struggles to cope with his new-found has-been status.

Save for a few shots and a handful of well-known supporting characters, The Artist looks like it could have come from the silent film era. That fact alone is a testament to the attention to detail behind this film. Silent films demand attention to detail because there is no sound supplementing or distracting from the visuals. The pacing, the cinematography, and the expressiveness of the cast make this movie a success. It lags at times, but there is so much imagery and sophistication built into the composition of some shots that I found myself giddy with excitement for noticing them.

The duo of Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo are a treat to behold. They’re expressiveness is so true to silent films. With no sound to convey emotion in the voice, actors had to over-emote with their posture, gestures, and facial expressions. In their attempt to replicate what we would now call over-doing it, there was a fine line between nailing the nonverbal communication of silent films and parodying it. The Artist never slips into parody.

Writer-director Michael Hazanavicius chose to fashion his silent movie after the melodramas of the 1920s. This was the right choice because an all-out silent drama would feel too self-important and a full-on comedy wouldn’t seem as special. With a story arc that is far from unique, The Artist is admittedly a success because it is style over substance.

But why make a silent film just for the sake of making a silent film? The filmmakers appreciate the artistry that has been lost for more than 80 years of talkies. Something about silent films speak to them and, as it turns out, they still speak to us too. This is the kind of cheery, nostalgic fare that makes me fall in love with cinema all over again.

RATING: 4 out of 5