SECOND HELPINGS: Twilight (2008)

First and foremost, I want to apologize for the overlong rant that was my original review. Good Lord, what a mess! Much of my criticism still stands but I will try to make it a little more eloquent and far more concise. We’ll start with this: Twilight is a very flawed film. There are issues with just about every aspect, technical and artistic. The biggest problem, however, is that the popularity of the book takes all the surprise out of the movie, making this film boring.

When the young-adult novel this film is based on was breaking waves, nobody was describing it as a girl falling in love with a mysterious boy. No, they were describing it as a vampire romance, a Romeo & Juliet story with a vampire twist, or some other way that included the word ‘vampire.’ Even the marketing of the film spoiled the big reveal that the film spends an hour building toward. It ruins the suspense and leaves us with nothing to do but analyze the merits of the first hour. This is dangerous because there is plenty to gripe about if you’re not a Twihard (slang for Twilight die-hard, if it isn’t obvious).

More than enough has already been written about how poor the writing is for both the book and film but I have to comment briefly. The biggest problem I have with the writing in this film is that it presents a worldview where Bella’s wild teenage emotions are totally justified and presented as normal. I understand the importance of writing to your audience but you don’t need to validate poor decision-making. When your target audience consists of tweens and teens, I hold the author/screenwriters responsible for setting a few things straight to help readers/viewers to identify the mistakes of their heroine. There is none of that here.

Character development is another issue that plagues this film. By the end of the film, Bella knows herself and the world of vampires better but has her character actually grown? She is still the clumsy girl who makes bad decisions and can’t keep herself out of harm’s way. Edward certainly hasn’t changed either. He’s still the brooding, wannabe James Dean type. Now he just has a committed girlfriend to look after. It’s a good thing he never sleeps, because as accident-prone as Bella is, he’ll need to monitor her almost round the clock.

Chemistry between characters is hit or miss. Some of that is due to the writing, while some of it is also due some weak acting. Bella’s human friends think she’s super smart because she comes up clever ideas that work out great. Does any of this build up her confidence? Of course not. If it did, then she probably wouldn’t let Edward treat her like an object. Let’s be clear- he only grows to love her after he gets past his desire to drink her blood. There is no love at first sight- only intrigue from Bella and bloodlust from Edward. It’s a very messed up foundation for a relationship.

I think the biggest flaw of Twilight is that the filmmakers tried too hard to make up for the weak story without changing the story. Instead of making much needed improvements to the script, the studio embraces Twilight’s inherent mediocrity and runs with it. The end result is a mess of moody incidental music, spinning cameras, creepy glances, and a digitally-altered color palette that sucks a little too much color out of the world. Pile on top of this some really lousy visual effects and you have more than enough to make uninitiated folks like myself balk.

If you even out the pace of Twilight, you will end up with a better movie. Spend a little less time building up to the reveal that everyone already knows about and stretch out the cat-and-mouse game with the hunter vampire and this film may even become a taught thriller. Instead we have a whole lot of exposition and nothing happening for an hour and a half with a half hour of break-neck action at the end.

The filmmakers probably kept pretty close to the pace of the book to keep the Twihards of the world happy. Happy filmgoers generate repeat viewings and an instantaneous demand for an adaptation of the sequel novel. This is further evidence that the financial success of the book got in the way of making the film anything remotely close to an artistic success.

ORIGINAL RATING: 2.5 out of 5

NEW RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Help* (2011)

This sassy, and at times catty, tale of black maids anonymously dishing the dirt on their wannabe Southern belle employers succeeds on a number of levels. It’s is simultaneously entertaining and thought-provoking. It also boasts snappy writing and terrific performances from the entire cast. The film may be a little heavy on the warm fuzzies but The Help is the kind of emotionally satisfying film you stop to watch when you come across it.

When Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan (Emma Stone) returns home to Jackson, Mississippi from college with a degree but no husband, her local women’s circle try to take under their wing and find her a man. This is 1963 after all. Skeeter would rather focus on a career in writing, however, and lands a job for the local paper as a homemaking columnist. Not skilled in the subject herself, Skeeter seeks advice from Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis), the black maid working for a member of the local women’s circle. This leads the young and idealistic Skeeter to compile a collection of stories from the perspective of Aibileen and her fellow maids. Published anonymously, the book creates a firestorm of controversy and intrigue but the project’s anonymity only lasts so long.

The characters and performances in this film are wonderful. Many characters could have been very cookie-cutter in nature but they aren’t. All of the black maids have personality. They are not all bitter towards their white employers, nor are they pushovers either. Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer give exhausting performances that showcase the emotional duality of working a job where you are treated as if you don’t exist half the time and less than a person the other half.

Bryce Dallas Howard is equally excellent as the scheming racist ringleader of the town’s young women. She could have been your stereotypical Southern belle who doesn’t understand the depths of her racism but she is so much more. Here is a power hungry woman bent on wielding whatever influence she has to keep those she finds inferior on a lower rung of the food chain. In today’s era, she would be a nightmarish politician.

Emma Stone’s character, though the facilitator of the whole thing, is actually the weakest in the entire story. She is very much your stereotypical young adult Baby Boomer full of idealism about social change and challenging the norm. Without the stellar mix of characters driving the story around her, The Help would descend into cliché. Had the story focused too much on Skeeter and put her up on a pedestal for her boldness in writing the book, audiences would have gagged. White liberals have trumpeted their work for minorities for decades so another dose of ‘see, we care!’ would have left everyone wanting more.

The Help does leave you wanting more though. It leaves you wanting more movies with acting as fabulous as you find here. This film shows that women in Hollywood do not have to settle for being a second-tier attraction. With the right story and the right talent, women can carry a film that matters and moves you. The Help does both. It may give in to a few too many heartwarming moments for its own good but we’ve almost come to expect that from movies about Baby Boomers and social justice. If you like great acting and uplifting stories, this one’s got them both in spades.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Cars (2006)

There is a significant age gap between me and the oldest of my cousins. I remember several of them and their parents absolutely adoring this movie for years after it came out. Having finally seen Cars, I am left wondering what all the fuss is about. Sure, it looks fantastic but this film feels a little too much like style over not enough substance with a bloated runtime and a story that suggests the writers put this one on cruise control.

Lightning McQueen is the hottest up-and-coming racecar in the Piston Cup circuit. He can back up all of his cocky swagger on the track but he has a hard time looking past his own greatness. After insulting his pit crew and pushing his hauler to the limit to reach Los Angeles first for a tie-breaking race for the Piston Cup championship, McQueen finds himself alone in a washed-up town called Radiator Springs. His arrival tears up the town’s street, for which the local authority sentences him to community service. While he works off his debt to the town, McQueen gets to know the colorful locals and learns a thing or two about the importance of teamwork as he preps for the big race.

From the glossy shine of Lightning McQueen to the dust and dirt of Radiator Springs, the animation in this movie represents another step forward by Pixar. At times, certain environments look almost photorealistic. The racing scenes in particular are exciting and they capture the energy and danger of the sport. The anthropomorphic characters all look good, even if they do play into stereotypes. The animators do a great job with how light reflects and bends off certain cars, while Mater really does look like he is made out of rusting metal. While most of the cars have the same textures, the filmmakers make up for it with the environments of the film.

The story, however, disappointed me. To me, the cocky-hotshot-gets-a-lesson-on-teamwork plot has been done enough times before that you can predict a lot of what’s coming. I’m okay with the winning-isn’t-everything message conveyed here because it is a valuable lesson for kids to learn. Otherwise, the overall message of Cars is be nice and work together. That’s a surprisingly simple and bland message for a Pixar film.

One serious problem with the film is its length. For a story about a racecar, Cars is anything but speedy. At almost two hours long, this is still the second-longest Disney and/or Pixar film ever made. Only Fantasia is longer. Most Disney films keep within the 80-90 minute range, though several have pushed the 100-minute mark lately. The Incredibles is only a minute shorter than Cars, but at least The Incredibles has more plot behind it and an antagonist. Cars is long on story and short on plot. There is no external antagonist. McQueen wants to get to the race and he needs to learn to get over himself. That could work in an 86-minute film. I think the lack of a true antagonist left the filmmakers to meander a little in order to bring all the story elements together in the end and that is a substantial problem.

Stories don’t always need a villain (case in point- Finding Nemo) but it is advisable to include one when your story is on the simple side. Cars could have used an active villain role, not just the other racecars he wants to beat for the championship. Introspection has worked well as an ingredient in Pixar films before but perhaps this film boasts too large a dose of it. Conflict is necessary, so making nice with the locals to get to the big race comes up very short. Several scenes are fun and exciting, and the whole film looks great but improved animation can’t save Cars from being the weakest Pixar film I’ve seen so far.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

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