Grumpy Old Men (1993)

Despite relying on some clichéd gags and audience familiarity with their particular brand of comedy, seeing Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau on screen together is a real treat. Timing is the essence of comedy and both men show they’ve still got it in spades. It helps that they worked together before because throwing just any two aged actors into these roles could have been a disaster. While the end product may not be the highlight of either of the stars’ careers, what we get is a delightful comedy that will more than likely put a smile on your face.

Wabasha, Minnesota neighbors John Gustafson (Jack Lemmon) and Max Goldman (Walter Matthau) have been rivals for decades since John stole Max’s high school sweetheart. John is long since divorced and Max is a widower, which leaves them ample time to torment each other with pranks. When a beautiful widow (Ann-Margret) moves in across the street, both men vie for her attention and affection, escalating their rivalry to new heights.

While the story isn’t all that unique, Grumpy Old Men has a lot going for it thanks to the characters and the talent bringing them to life. I don’t have to say much else about Lemmon and Matthau. They’re icons of comedy and they do a fine job of balancing their boyish antics with the limitations of their aged bodies. Ann-Margret’s character could have been something of a throwaway but she makes the role more than just a pretty face. She succeeds at the subtle things that drive her suitors crazy while also maintaining a firmness that puts them in their place. Then there’s Burgess Meredith as Lemmon’s father. He steals the show every time his character is allowed to go off on a tangent and talk dirty.

Rather than be just a slew of raunchy retiree antics, the filmmakers slow the pace down a little with a side plot involving John’s daughter and Max’s son kindling some romance as her marriage concludes its death spiral. I guess it gives younger viewers something to connect with and it is treated with enough care so that it doesn’t fall into standard rom-com trappings. It’s the completely forgettable part of the film and, while you never want a part of your film to be forgettable, at least the sidebar characters that miss the mark rather than the main characters. These scenes are not bad; they just fail to make an impression.

Maybe that’s one way to describe this film as a whole. You aren’t likely to remember particular scenes in great detail but you remember the overall experience. If you were to make a list of 90s comedies worth watching again, Grumpy Old Men should be on that list. It’s not one of the all-time greats but it is consistent enough to make you forget about a few minor flaws and remember it fondly.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Airplane! (1980)

Here’s another film that some people were shocked to learn I never saw before 2013. Spoofing Hollywood’s obsession with disaster flicks in the 1970s, Airplane! still holds its own. My generation has had this film’s brand of sarcastic genre humor played to death thanks to the Scary Movie franchise and countless other one-off attempts at genre spoofing. Younger viewers, those who don’t watch older films, and anyone who tends to look down on silly humor will probably feel like this is a waste of time. If you can put things in context and forget that all the other inferior genre-spoofing films exist, you will have lots of fun.

Despite his fear of flying after a war, Ted Striker (Robert Hays) boards a commercial jetliner to win back the heart of his girlfriend (Julie Hagerty). After the in-flight meal, dozens of passengers grow ill. When the cockpit crew all succumb to food poisoning, the flight crew is desperate for a pilot. Ted begrudgingly volunteers and works through his trauma to save the lives of all on board with the help from control tower staff.

While the structure of the film is straight-up drama, Airplane! infuses every scene with as much humor, irony, and wacky randomness as possible. Many of the background characters portray ludicrous stereotypes or are celebrities playing against type. Some of the jokes are subtle but the zany stuff never stops escalating. Some may complain about this but disaster films have a knack for not lightening up on the tension until the very end. Why should a disaster spoof be any different in its mechanics?

The faux-serious delivery of the film only amplifies the humor. Everyone in this film acts all serious despite the outlandish things they say, do, and see happening around them. I think this is probably where most genre-spoofs lose steam. They tend to go for the obvious references and situational jokes but fail to sustain any kind of mood between jokes. Airplane! builds up a mood and plot and inserts the jokes around that. That is why this film continues to be held in high regard despite all the topical imitators that have followed.

Is this movie for everyone? No. My wife didn’t see what the big deal was and even I have to admit that I can only rate this film as high as I do because I can see past the years of lame spoof films. Though Mel Brooks was making genre comedies for a decade already, this film was a first-of-its-kind in terms of sheer random silliness. In this day and age of genre spoofs and Family Guy randomness, you couldn’t make this kind of film a success anymore. The filmmakers caught stupid-humor lightning in a bottle with this one.

RATING: 4 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Chicken Little (2005)

After a string of underperforming flicks that garnered critical reception that was lukewarm at best, you would think that Disney’s decision to go back to the well of time-honored children’s fables would be a good thing. Let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, that we were very, very wrong. Chicken Little is not only Disney’s worst film to date, it commits a sin far worse than simply being boring or lacking quality animation. This film is obnoxious and insulting. I dreaded re-watching this film and all of my fears were justified.

As a fan of context, I’d like to provide some here. When this film came out, Disney was in heated negotiations with Pixar. Their contract was almost up and Pixar was using Disney’s lackluster performance streak as leverage to sweeten their end of any deal. Disney had yet to enter the fray of computer-animated films and interest in their traditionally-animated product waned as audiences craved the new hotness. All of this converged into Chicken Little. It was Disney’s way to say that they were still relevant and that they could compete with not only other studios but also with Pixar. It was almost as if Pixar told Disney ‘you need us’ and Disney said ‘no we don’t and we can prove it.’ Disney was dead wrong, scrapped the negotiations, and flat-out bought Pixar less than a year after this film was released.

As far as the animation goes, it’s not Pixar quality but it’s also not terrible. In fact, Disney should get a little credit for spending enough on their animation software that their end product looks better than a handful of Pixar’s imitators. Some of the characters look like they were designed to be as simple to work with as possible, which calls into question whether Disney was really ready and willing to take the full plunge on computer animation. Much of the movie is spent teetering back and forth between rich textures and few, if any, textures. It’s pretty clear that the animators used this film to work out all the bugs and to get used to the new-fangled technology.

In its push to bring the technological heat, Disney forgets one important element. The story sucks. The classic fable is only long enough for a short film, so after running through said fable in the first five minutes, the filmmakers have to make up an additional 75 minutes of story. Instead of something interesting, like a lesson against needlessly spreading fear or putting your trust in those who capitalize on it, we get a combination lecture and public service announcement on the importance of communicating with your children.

Yes, you read that correctly. Rather than a lesson about the spread of fear, Disney flips the story on its head. As it turns out, Chicken Little was right- part of the sky did fall! More random yet, it’s aliens! Once an outcast, now only Chicken Little can save his town, and Earth, from certain doom! To fill in the gap, we get sad attempts at making the juvenile characters clever, funny, and mature beyond their years. What this results in is a rehash of coming-of-age movie clichés where the kids are smart and capable but the adults are dopes who can barely get out of their own way.

The spastic antics of our tightly wound kiddie characters may entertain children on the most superficial of levels but that’s only because they won’t realize they aren’t the target audience. Chicken Little sets its sights on mom and dad. It seems like a first to me but it is also a problem. Can you imagine paying to take your kids to see a movie in the theater only to have the movie lecture you, suggesting that you’re not spending enough time with or listening to your own children? With this film, Disney is basically thanking you for buying a ticket and immediately questioning whether you really love your kid. I’m surprised there weren’t riots like you see at Chuck E Cheese.

I think one of the chief reasons that this film feels so insultingly inferior is that Finding Nemo was so great. There you had similar father-son communication issues being resolved but in a way that showed character growth. With Chicken Little all you got is a Big Dumb Parent saying, “Gosh! I guess I should have listened to and believed my own kid a little more.” The animation may be better than the average studio attempt to catch up with Pixar but that story sets up any number of puns. Is Chicken Little a bad egg, a rotten egg, a story that never fully hatched, one in need of a little more incubation, or not all it’s cracked up to be? Take your pick and please don’t watch this stain on the legacy of Disney.

ORIGINAL RATING: 2.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 2.25 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: The Incredibles (2004)

When this film came out, I was irked by the number of people who thought that describing this film as ‘incredible’ was witty. I was still in college when I got around to watching it and, rather than seeing it as an homage to comic book teams, I viewed this film as a rip-off fusion of the Fantastic Four and the X-Men. Had I known anything about Watchmen at the time, I probably would have been screaming rip-off of that too. Now that I’m older and wiser, my opinion of this film has improved significantly. Still though, I can’t help but feel that this film is just a smidge overrated.

I still have no reason to complain about the quality of Pixar’s animation. The textures and environments that they create really make you wonder at times if all action-oriented films will be done exclusively with CGI someday. Nothing seems impossible anymore with this production company. I’m not convinced yet that Pixar is very good at animating human characters in a realistic way, but The Incredibles gets a pass because it’s a faux-comic book movie. Anyone who’s looked at a comic book knows that most take at least a few liberties with dimensions and proportions.

Teams of superheroes are nothing new and three of the four members of the Parr family suiting up have powers just like three of the Fantastic Four. The filmmakers do throw freshness into the mix pretty well through juxtaposing our main characters’ abilities and their impact on a real-world setting. Thwarting bad guys causes some very real wear and tear on the people and buildings caught in the crossfire. Some of this juxtaposition is pretty subtle while some of it is used for immediate sight gags.

Overall, I can see now how The Incredibles pays homage to comic book superheroes but there is also a lot of satire involved. It’s got to be a pretty fine tightrope walk to poke fun at comic book conventions while including a number of them in your film. The balance may be uneven at different times but this film never gets too cynical nor too fanboy rah-rah on us. Syndrome, the film’s antagonist, has a few moments where he gets very mean-spirited and dark but he is usually yanked out of full-blown maniacal villain mode in a humorous way. Whether this makes that momentary intensity acceptable is up to you.

While The Incredibles looks great and is a lot of fun to watch, it is remarkably violent for a family film. I recall docking The Black Cauldron quite a bit for being very un-Disney with its darkness and creepy imagery but I think level of violence, peril, and intensity in this film surpasses even The Black Cauldron. You can try to argue that this is a Pixar film and that my Disney branding is inaccurate, or that the nature of the film’s subject, comic book superheroes, requires a higher level of violence. The tell-tale mark that justifies my criticism is this film’s PG rating. That tells you that this film is not appropriate for the entire family.

If you have little ones, particularly boys, what will they retain from this film? What will they reenact? Will it be the wholesome lesson of family togetherness and teamwork or will it be the high-flying kicks, punches, and action sequences? I’m not condemning this film for the violence but I do think a little less of it. It’s still a fun, feel-good kind of movie but it is one that I’ll have to think long and hard about sharing with my daughter. Putting all that danger and violence in context is a tricky thing.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Big (1988)

This is the film that cemented Tom Hanks as A-list talent even before he moved away from comedy. Watching this film for the first time in over a decade, it’s not hard to see why both Hanks and this film became so popular. Big takes an emotionally honest look at the struggles that come with growing up by plunging its main character into adulthood overnight. The growing pains may be fantastical but they are familiar enough to make one ponder just how we survive that transition at slow-speed.

When 12-year-old Josh Baskin makes a wish to be big on a carnival fortune teller machine, he gets much more than he bargained for. The next morning he wakes up with the body of a 30-year-old man (Tom Hanks). Unable to explain his transformation to his freaked-out mother, Josh has no one to help him but his best friend Billy (Jared Rushton), who believes Josh’s tale. Together, they find Josh a job and an apartment in New York City while Billy tracks the carnival so Josh can reverse the spell. As Josh climbs the ranks at a toy company he finds it harder to live a double life and struggles to choose between which one matters most to him.

Sometimes these sorts of one-trick-pony films irk me for being completely reliant on one actor to carry the entire film. More often than not, you find this kind of overreliance on a star player in biopics and very weighty dramas requiring the kind of stirring passion and powerful oratory skills that are now clichéd for the most part. With Big, however, we have a delightful break from the norm. This film has to rely on its main star to keep the illusion of a child in a man’s body alive but the illusion being preserved is every bit as important as the performance that Hanks delivers.

The age-change conceit wasn’t exactly fresh when Big hit theaters but most films using it involve two people switching bodies and aimed for easy laughs. Few if any actually involved a full-body transformation or contain subtle commentary as our youthful protagonist comes of age in an adult’s body. Big never takes the easy way out and that matters. Credit goes to the writers for crafting such an emotionally real film. Director Penny Marshall deserves plenty of credit herself for keeping that emotional honesty alive in Josh Baskin.

Tom Hanks pumps all the right youthful energy and naivety into his performance. All of his mannerisms, reactions, and gestures are exactly what a child would do, which adds to the humor of his most expressive scenes. Even when the character starts to drift into accepting adulthood as his reality, there is enough 12-year-old body language to remind us that Josh does not belong there yet.

There are a few clunky story elements that have to be aired, lest you think this film is perfect. Obviously the fantastical storyline is pure fiction and some of the things Josh does to get by in the adult world are hard to swallow. Even in the 1980s, I have a hard time believing a major company would hire someone without discovering a bogus social security number, a falsified degree, and made-up references. Then there is the really-icky-if-you-think-about-it romance between Josh and a colleague.

Even still, this film has enough innocence and fun to make up for these kinds of details. Big manages to say a lot of insightful things about both childhood and adulthood without getting preachy or cliché. That makes for a pretty impressive 104 minutes. The world of children and adults seem light-years apart, yet this film reminds us that some aspects of both are closer than we think or would like to admit. The emotions are the same but we hold them in check better and feel those emotions about different things. Big defies the Hollywood coming-of-age film odds and smashes through the cynicism of adulthood. The fashion and technology are dated but this film is timeless and could not possibly be remade without losing some of the magic. Leave this one alone, Hollywood.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Home on the Range (2004)

To be completely honest, I had to look up this film online to refresh my memory of the plot points. That sentence alone should tell you loud and clear what kind of impression this film makes on its audience. This is pretty much lowest-common denominator Disney. It may satisfy visually but without memorable characters or a compelling story, there is nothing to recommend here outside of a momentary distraction.

After the rest of her herd is stolen by the dastardly Alameda Slim (Randy Quaid), Maggie (Roseanne Barr), is sold to the Patch of Heaven farm, where she butts heads with two prim and proper cows named Grace (Jennifer Tilly) and Mrs. Calloway (Judi Dench). When Patch of Heaven is threatened with foreclosure, Maggie convinces the other cows to band together and find a way to raise enough money to save the farm. Upon learning that the bounty on Alameda Slim is the exact amount needed to save their home, Maggie steers the trio headlong into an adventure that is as revealing as it is dangerous.

The basic plot of this film has been done more times than I can count. Whether it’s winning a contest, putting on a show, or (in this case) finding something to claim a reward, we’ve seen this outline too many times before to even mistake it as original. Using an archetypal story isn’t a sin, however. The real problem is that Disney fails to give Home on the Range any satisfying twists on said archetypal story. Oh sure, there are outlandish deviations from the blueprint but perhaps a yodeling cattle rustler is a little too out there to be accepted by anyone who has finished elementary school.

The timing of Home on the Range is tragic. Computer-animated films had taken over and Disney, reading the writing on the wall, decided to make one last traditional animated film for nostalgia’s sake. The animation in this film showcases the sad slide in quality that befell Disney over a half-dozen years. It’s not bad but it’s often no better than Disney’s TV cartoons (if they even still made them for afternoon and Saturday morning TV by 2004).

The characters in this film are hit or miss. Roseanne Barr’s sassy, blue-collar wit is something I grew up with, so that may explain why I’m okay with Maggie. She is a little paint-by-numbers but the personality injected by the voice actor goes a long way. I cannot say that the same goes for the rest of the cast. Grace and Mrs. Calloway fall under the typical goodie-goodie types who grow to appreciate their boisterous colleague but never really approve of her behavior. It’s more solidarity than sisterhood. Everyone else is just there to fill a role and provide their own brief moment of uniqueness but they fail to leave a mark.

When a film alternates between trying too hard and not trying hard enough, it makes it hard to know what to think. This review feels almost like a collection of incomplete thoughts but maybe that’s less of strike against me and more of a strike against the film. As far as Disney films go, Home on the Range is terrible. Fortunately, terrible for Disney is still a mostly-harmless way to kill some time if you absolutely must.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Ernest Goes to Camp (1987)

Just like Short Circuit, this is a film that I watched on a regular basis growing up. My grandparents had recorded it off one of those free movie channel previews and my sister and I probably pushed that poor VHS tape to its limit by the time we were old enough to stay at home on our own after school. It’s far from great cinema but Ernest Goes to Camp is great fun.

Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) is the facilities handyman at Kamp Kikakee, a summer adventure camp for boys that was once the site of a Native American tribe known for its trials for ushering boys into manhood. Longing to become a camp counselor, Ernest gets his chance when no one is willing to take charge of a group of delinquents from a nearby juvenile detention facility. While Ernest struggles to engage the defiant youths, he also inadvertently gets used by a local mining executive who wants to steal Kamp Kikakee from Chief Saint Cloud, who speaks no English.

I don’t think any of the Ernest films qualify as anything but a guilty pleasure, but I don’t see any harm in liking this movie. This was the first true Ernest film, coming on the heels of a successful string of commercials and a few direct-to-video releases. Despite being dimwitted and klutzy, Ernest lets down his wide smile several times to show a caring sincerity that is absent in many of the other adults around him. He may have the enthusiasm of a child, which is why many people in this film disregard him, but it is also an innocent enthusiasm. Part of this man wasn’t forced to grow up, providing a spastic and hilarious conduit between children and adults.

While Varney obviously commits to his role with zeal, credit has to be given to the child actors working most closely with him. They do a good job selling the tough-guy delinquent attitude their characters need, even if none of them seem particularly imposing or muscular enough to actually be in juvie. They may be based on delinquent stereotypes fitting of late-teen thugs but they do their best with what they’ve got. Their slow turnaround from apathy doesn’t feel as phony as some kid-focused movies. That’s probably because the filmmakers focus more on entertaining audiences than trying to inspire them with clichéd aww-shucks moments.

The story isn’t very original or compelling (David v. Goliath, standing up for what’s right, and learning responsibility) but it is very fun to watch. Ernest constantly breaks the fourth wall, which signals to the audience that Ernest is aware of how crazy all his antics really are. This breaks down the forced sense of objectivity that the fourth wall represents, allowing us to take the film as seriously or lightly as we choose. I choose to take it lightly and I think that makes all the difference.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

The Best Years of Our Lives** (1946)

As I write this review of a film following three World War II veterans struggling to reacclimate into everyday life, a heated debate is raging about a film that looks at the same issue. While I have yet to see American Sniper, I have to wonder if this film sparked any controversy upon its release. Re-entry into civilian life was either taboo or not on Hollywood’s radar before The Best Years of Our Lives was made. Granted, the golden age of Hollywood was in the roaring 20s, when glitz and glamour were in vogue and long after the end of World War I, and production codes restricted a wide range of content from being put on film. The content of this film feels like it should have been risky, which is why I think it is so powerful.

Three servicemen meet while heading home after World War II and discover that they all live in the same town. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) returns to a loving upper-middle class family and a job as a loan officer at a bank. Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) lost his hands in the war and is nervous how his fiancée and their families will react to his disability. Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) returns to an unskilled job and a wife who is tired of scraping by. The three men find themselves leaning on each other as they all struggle to rejoin civilian life.

This is a very honest film in its presentation of civilian America. All of the sets were built to real size as opposed to the oversized architecture common to Hollywood films of the day. All of the costumes are real off-the-rack items instead of designed and perfectly tailored by a costuming department. All of this adds up to a tight, authentic look that feels almost like a documentary at times. If you don’t know these facts, then you might find the aesthetic elements of the film to be lackluster. I don’t hold this against the film but the length of it made me restless at times.

The Best Years of Our Lives comes in at just under three hours long. I think any viewer would get fidgety in that final hour because the film lacks any external conflict or rising tension. Instead, it’s like a three-hour case study of three veterans struggling to figure out who they are and what they believe after the war. What we do have are three genuinely interesting men struggling internally with how they want to define themselves. As the film goes on, each of these characters develop in their own way. Harold Russell provides a completely honest portrayal of struggling with disability but he also struggles with his more emotional scenes (this was his first experience as an actor).

Perhaps this film avoided any controversy over its subject matter because it was treated with respect and earnestly raised awareness of the struggles of veterans. Had it been more exploitative or made veterans look bad there probably would have been a row. Still, I was shocked to see Al’s daughter declare her intentions to break up Fred’s struggling marriage in a film made in the 1940s.

Its length and slow but true-to-life pace may turn some off but this really is an excellent film. Other than a few deep focus shots, there isn’t much to see in this film that will dazzle you but that is by design. The film appeals so well to the emotions that one can’t help but root for each of the three principals to find their place in the world. Younger audiences may not care for The Best Years of Our Lives but this is certainly a case of slow and steady winning the race.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Brother Bear (2003)

The three years separating this film from The Emperor’s New Groove feels like an eternity. Other than the mildly entertaining Lilo & Stitch, Disney seems to have lost its magic. Had Pixar been a rival to Disney rather than a business partner during this time frame, the House of Mouse would have been on life support. While Brother Bear seems to check off some of the surefire ingredients that served Disney well over the years, the end result feels more like a misfire.

In a prehistoric time, a young man named Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix) is displeased with the sacred totem (a bear) bestowed upon him by his tribe. Seeming to confirm his disapproval of bears, a wild bear steals food from the tribe during the ceremony. When Kenai and his older brothers hunt the bear down, the eldest brother, Sitka (D. B. Sweeney), gives his life to save his brothers. Kenai kills the bear but the Spirits the tribe worship transform him into a bear. To regain his human form and achieve manhood in his tribe, Kenai must learn from his mistakes and help a young bear cub find his way through the wild.

I do have to give this film some credit for a little bit of trickery. When the film begins, it is presented in one aspect ratio and the art direction portrays the animals and environments very realistically. After Kenai is turned into a bear, the aspect ratio is wider and the environments and animals have a more cartoonish look. It’s not exactly Dorothy walking out into a Technicolor Munchkinland but it’s a clever trick involving a change of perspective, which Kenai needs to appreciate his totem.

Other than that, this film is forgettable. In the time that has passed since I saw Brother Bear, I completely forgot that this film even has songs in it. That’s a cardinal sing for Disney movies that use songs. My lapse in memory is probably in part because most of the songs were used during montage segments, rather than having the characters sing them movie-musical style. More often than not, this musical direction choice hasn’t worked out well for Disney.

When you have a fairly simple story, as in this film, it helps to have complex characters to make up for it. I was not engaged by any of the characters in Brother Bear. Kenai and Koda are too paint-by-numbers and the plot twist that befalls them is predictable from early on. The filmmakers even bring back the goofiness of Bob and Doug McKenzie by way of Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas voicing two sarcastic moose. This is an obvious throwaway joke for parents when the film came out but probably half the people my age don’t even remember that comedy act. Those not in the know just assume they’re a pair of stereotypical Canadian moose. I like Bob and Doug but I did not care for the moose bit.

The prehistoric setting probably helped prevent Native Americans, anthropologists, and history buffs from getting upset when this film was released. Pocahontas certainly irked a number of people but that’s because it butchered a true story. Brother Bear is fiction and I doubt it will elicit a strong response from very many people. It’s cute and colorful but it’s also low-quality Disney. That doesn’t mean it’s bad but being boring is usually worse.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Clue (1985)

In what is said to be the first film based on a board game, audiences are handed a delightful mad-cap dark comedy with plenty of screwball antics. It may be easy to dismiss Clue as little more than a gimmick, what with its source material and three different endings, but it is also a lot of fun to watch. A good viewing experience counts for quite a bit and Clue is more than just a guilty pleasure.

Six strangers attend a mysterious dinner event at a secluded New England estate. The butler reveals that a seventh guest, Mr. Boddy, is the one secretly blackmailing them all and informs them that the police are on their way. Boddy counters by encouraging the guests to kill the butler, destroy the evidence, and everyone walks away. When the lights go out, Boddy is killed, leaving the guests to sort out whodunit before the police arrive.

This film was a mixed bag with critics when it was released and I can see why, if you assume that those critics only got to see one ending of the film. On home video, two endings are presented as possibilities and the third as the real ending. The two false endings involve a single mastermind behind all the killing. In the ending listed as the real one, there are multiple murderers for multiple reasons. It’s hard to swallow the two false endings because they border on ridiculously intricate to pull off. The mass chaos of the third ending is both amusing and much more believable.

The more familiar you are with the murder mystery genre, the more you will probably appreciate this film. Most of the characters are based on stereotypes from the genre, so there is actually quite a bit of subtlety and nuance to Clue. If you’re not familiar with the genre much at all, you will still find it amusing for the witty banter and physical comedy. Either way, there is something to like here.

As for the other aspects of the film, they all do their job but they don’t stand out. The sets give off the right stuffy-mansion-playing-host-to-murder vibe and the music is appropriate to the genre as well. The combination of ingredients makes this film a good time for most, which elevates it above mere guilty pleasure status. It’s harmless fun that no one should fault you for watching or passing over when you come across it on the TV.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5