A Hard Day’s Night (1964)

If you are the type of person who would enjoy watching a popular band being goofy and lip synching to their latest tunes for 80 minutes, then this film is for you. This film is not for me but I can appreciate its place in musical film history. Beyond its legacy as part of Beatlemania and its noticeable impact on later band movies and documentaries, the nearly unanimous critical acclaim for A Hard Day’s Night baffles me.

John, Paul, George, and Ringo are headed to London to perform on a TV show. Every step of the way they are pursued by throngs of screaming fans infected with Beatlemania. Between keeping Paul’s grandfather out of trouble and being cooped up in a hotel room, the boys want to get some fresh air between practice sessions. Thus begins a series of wanderings, musings, and frantic attempts by the band’s manager to get them all together for the show.

I love the Beatles but this movie does absolutely nothing for me. It’s a cute, fictitious look at two days in the life of the Fab Four but that’s about it. Scenes where the lads are frantically trying to evade their fans are played up for camp but you do have to wonder how close to reality that strikes at times. Being creative powerhouses that can’t even enjoy themselves in public? If anything, those elements of the film make A Hard Day’s Night a harbinger of the paparazzi culture that would explode in later decades.

One thing is very evident in almost every scene: The Beatles made charming music and had great stage presence, but none of them could act. Unless their performances are some form of British humor that was common before Monty Python and Are You Being Served, you will have a hard time convincing me that anything about their deliveries was deliberate. While they occasionally crack a good joke, the vast majority fall flat because the Fab Four have no sense of comedic timing.

Paul’s grandfather at least provides some genuine outlandish humor. Unless you know anything about the actor’s involvement on Steptoe & Son (remade in the US as Sanford and Son), the running gag about him being a “clean old man” makes no sense. It didn’t make sense to me before I looked it up. I can’t fault the film for using a bit of timely humor. Most comedies do it. This one just happens to be 50 years old. The old man and the film’s soundtrack make it worth watching.

In the end, this is a quaint and sometimes funny look at superstars dealing with and taking advantage of their celebrity status. The raging cynic in me believes that this film is only revered the way it inexplicably is because it features The Beatles. Had any other band in that era or any other been the first to make this kind of film, it would have flopped. That, my friends, is the power of exploitation. I respect this film’s place in history but I think Baby Boomers and Beatles fans need to take off their rose-colored glasses and admit that this film really isn’t that great at all.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Aladdin (1992)

I’m pretty sure it is politically incorrect to enjoy this movie anymore. Some Disney films are timeless wonders, never losing their magic. Others are near-hits that have short-term staying power but lose their touch after a generation or two. Fewer still are the misses that are quickly forgotten about. Then there is Aladdin. It gets high marks for being extraordinarily fun to watch, but will all the Middle Eastern stereotypes put the brakes on this film’s longevity in a post 9/11 world?

The evil sorcerer Jafar is looking for a ‘diamond in the rough’ to snatch a magic genie’s lamp from the Cave of Wonders. He finds just the person he needs in a young street beggar named Aladdin but the plot goes awry. Aladdin and his pet monkey Abu befriend the zany genie and they embark on a journey to pass off Aladdin as a prince to woo the lovely and headstrong Princess Jasmine.

This film is so much fun to watch. That fact alone makes up for a lot of little quibbles here and there. The animation is simplified many times throughout, looking more like The Rescuers Down Under than Beauty and the Beast. Some of the more textured and detailed stretches of animation come when the filmmakers use their hybrid CGI-traditional animation technology. This technology has not aged well and you can really tell where it’s used. Other than that, the color palette is bright and exotic and fits the story well.

The music of Aladdin is hit or miss. Sure, there are the two or three big hits but there are only five songs in total. The incidental music is largely forgettable, as if Disney knew it needed a handful of catchy tunes to appease the masses and put as little effort as possible into exceed the bare minimum. Those hit songs though? Boy, will they stick in your head afterwards!

The characters of this film are an interesting mix as well. Aladdin and Jasmine are all fine and dandy but fail to make much of an impression- he’s the petty thief with a heart of gold and she’s a post-feminist era woman fighting against a male-centric society. The supporting characters steal the show but I’m not sure why Jafar needed to be so effeminate. Granted it makes his arrogance and cockiness more humorous, but it causes viewers to not take him seriously even though he wields extraordinary power. His bird sidekick, Iago (voiced by Gilbert Gottfried) helps keep him in check and sets up plenty of gags.

The real show-stopper here though is Robin Williams as the Genie. His character has all the best lines, the best antics, and the best personality. The Genie is so off the wall and makes many non-contextual jokes, allusions, and impersonations. This non-contextual humor usually bothers me, and I’ll admit that I’m not crazy about it in Aladdin, but the Genie’s charm and pizazz makes this movie worth watching. Without all the wackiness Aladdin would probably have been forgotten about by now.

This brings me back to my initial question- how much longer will Aladdin be remembered? Disney has gotten some serious mileage hawking Princess Jasmine dolls to little girls. The character is a boost to Disney’s commitment to diversity in its princesses even though the story presents some harsh stereotypes about the Middle East. Yet, for those who want to complain about politically incorrect content, I say this- the story takes place in the distant past. If you think it reflects poorly on the modern day Arab world, lighten up and enjoy the magic carpet ride. This is one of the most start-to-finish fun Disney movies out there.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Letters to Juliet (2010)

I imagine that the earliest chick flicks probably were not well received because of their kitsch, convenience, and poor storytelling. I don’t know how long ago the first quantifiable chick flick actually came out. Since those early days, however, many chick flicks are met with similar dissatisfaction, not only for the aforementioned qualities but also because those qualities have all but become a caricature of themselves. Such is largely the case with Letters to Juliet.

Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is a journalism fact-checker on a pre-honeymoon with her fiancé, who uses their trip to Italy more for perfecting recipes than for enjoying his bride-to-be. After wandering around Verona, Sophie stumbles upon a group of women who answer ‘letters to Juliet’ left in a wall in town. After writing a response to a very old letter, Sophie gets recruited by the writer- Claire (Vanessa Redgrave)- to track down a long lost love. Sophie and Claire get along fine, but Claire’s grandson (Christopher Egan) does not approve of the quest.

From that description, keen observers and those exposed to too many chick flicks over the years can probably figure out all they need to know about this film. If you envision plenty of convenient coincidences, an all too likely ‘unlikely’ romance, and a neat and tidy bow of a happy ending, you win a cookie. But wait, there’s more!

As a man, I am not hard-wired to appreciate the clichés and gushing predictability contained in chick flicks in general. Therefore, I take Letters to Juliet for what it is- a candy-coated puff piece for girls. The acting is far from great but both Seyfried and Redgrave are likeable actresses. You can tell they are trying, which I can appreciate. Egan is more or less reading lines. Part of me can’t blame him for being fed such a flimsy character with terrible lines. But another part of me sees the other two stars trying and ponders whether Egan’s performance is a reflection of his apathy to the material or just his acting ability.

While the plot is silly to the extreme (do you really expect us to believe that Claire’s letter went unfound for that long?), Letters to Juliet does not insult your intelligence. In fact, it is genuinely humorous at times. My biggest beef with the film is just how long the first half feels. It just drags on and on before much of anything happens worth noting. To say that about a film that clocks in at an hour forty-five just seems wrong.

As with many chick flicks, this one is mostly harmless (once you get through the first half anyway). I’m willing to call it subpar for the genre but you could easily do far worse.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5