CRAZY HEART: REVIEW

CRAZY HEART is a quiet, beautiful film. It has Jeff Bridges in his finest hour, playing Bad Blake, a musician who use to be somebody and now is a nobody who plays bowling alleys and bars. He's still given free hotel rooms and food by the people who run the bowling alleys, but no free booze. You see, it's a specific clause in his contract: No Tabs at the bar.

That doesn't stop Bad Blake from getting free booze. Not in the ways you think. And yeah, he's a drunk, but not in the way you think. He doesn't make big scenes. He stumbles off stage during a gig, vomits, sits, then goes back and finishes the set. It ain't pretty, but as he mumbles, "Bad Blake's never missed a gig." Bad Blake also pretty much survives by writing music for Tommy (Colin Farrell singing country, yes, Colin Farrell), who used to be his pupil and is now selling out country arenas. Ah, well.

CRAZY HEART is pretty much WALK THE LINE, only it feels more real than WALK THE LINE, which is interesting when because WALK THE LINE is based on a true story and CRAZY HEART is fiction. But CRAZY HEART feels more like how it would really happen with the story of the washed up alcoholic genius singer/songwriter who might get it right this time. Because alcoholics either get worse or they get better. The problem is, of course, not exactly when they get worse, because if they get worse, they get worse. The problem is, even when they get better, it doesn't mean that life waits around to greet them with a smile when they get out of rehab.

I'm making the film sound like an epic downer. It isn't. CRAZY HEART has a lot of sorrow, but also a lot of humor and truth. And what sorrow there is wistful sorrow, the better kind of sorrow. Better because wistful is more interesting, at least to me. The idea of "Ah, well..." has a lot more gas in the tank than "Oh, no" or the ever popular "Why me, Lord?"

There's a lot of nice touches and little twists on this well-worn story. Yes, Blake meets a girl (Maggie Gyllenhaal) with a son, but there's more to her than you would think. Yes, Tommy has bypassed Blake in popularity, but he's actually a nice guy; who often gives credit to Blake and offers to cut an album with him. Yes, Blake has an old friend who looks after him (Robert Duvall), but he's not an enabler or a lecturer, he's a bartender who knows well the risks and rewards of booze. Yes, Blake's alcoholism leads to disaster, but not in obvious, scene-causing ways. Blake's biggest mistake, when it finally comes, could really happen to anyone. The problem is, it happens to him right after he's ordered a double whiskey at lunchtime.

There's a scene between Blake and his bartender in a fishing boat where they discuss mistakes. Listen to the dialogue. Blake has a son that he's never seen in years, who he finally called, and the call didn't go well. Blake thinks that his own gesture is too little, too late. Bartender disagrees: "For 25 years, you stepped wrong, and you were wrong, and he was right. But now you've stepped right, and he's in the wrong, and you're in the right." Blake isn't sure. Bartender is. The point is which of them is right, the point is it's an actual discussion.

Nothing much happens in CRAZY HEART. Nothing much has to, when you have actors this good, writing this good and amazing original music, produced by T Bone Burnett. It never steps wrong, never sounds a false note, and actually takes the time to let you listen to the music. Let me be clear: nothing really happens in this movie. Sure, interesting characters live, breathe, change and think; but there's no epic romance or plot twists or plot, really. If it sounds boring, well, I can't help you, but I can warn you. Me, I found myself caring deeply about what happened to this washed up old man.

There was a movie released in 2006 called ONCE, about an irish singer songwriter and the girl that makes him want to be a better man. But no real plot to speak of. CRAZY HEART is the country version of ONCE. That's not just high praise, it's the truth. And I don't even like country music.

RATING: * * * * * (out of 5 Stars)

P.S. The soundtrack is mostly original songs sung by Jeff Bridges and Colin Farrell. It's really, really good. Really.

HOLIDAY MOVIE MADNESS: HOLIDAY HARDER

Today's all about Scrooge, comma, Ebenezer.

"A Christmas Carol", the story, is really about Scrooge. The myth of Scrooge only works if we (a) truly believe his misanthropy and (b) believe he may not be redeemable and (c) still want to pull for him. It helps if the ghosts are neat and Tiny Tim is more than a tearjerking puppet, but basically, if you have Scrooge, you have a show.

Of course, what if you have two movies where the Scrooge is quite good, but the takes are quite different?

Therefore, here are two different takes on the story, one with a modern day -circa 1988- Bill Murray, the other with Muppets. Have at thee!

SCROOGED



SCROOGED works on so many levels that it comes as a shock that it almost completely falls apart. Strike that. Reverse it. SCROOGED has such a bad critical reputation as a flop and a turkey that it's a shock to see how good it is, right up until the end. And even then, it's pretty good.

What SCROOGED does right is to re-invent A CHRISTMAS CAROL for today, or at least, today circa 1988. It is hard to age well when your movie is set "now", but SCROOGED manages to become a pretty good capsule for everything wrong about the end of the Reagan era. Bill Murray plays Frank Cross, aka Scrooge 88', television executive and a real sonofabitch. Scrooge 88/Frank doesn't hate Christmas, in fact, he loves it. "It's cold and people stay home and watch TV. These idiots are going to be at home watching TV for me tonight!"

Frank's entire career is riding on a (somewhat implausible) live broadcast of "Christmas Carol", starring Buddy Hackett, Mary Lou-Reton, and for no good reason, John Houseman as himself, as the narrator. When Frank's boss asks what how the show will appeal to the dog and cat demographic (really), Frank comes up with doormice. When they can't get the little antlers onto the doormice, Frank suggests using a stapler. In short, Frank's a real bastard, and Murray's performance is the key to what success the movie has.

A critical shot at the beginning of the film gets the message through. Murray's about to unload on his staff at a meeting, for he has found their television promos wanting. Right before he opens his mouth, he pulls open a drawer at his conference table that contains nothing but a mirror. He looks at himself.


He then smiles and winks at himself.



Then he shoots his staff a look, which we see reflected in the mirror.



This whole shot takes about 3 seconds. But in that 3 seconds, you get a miserable man, forcing himself to be amused at what he does, followed by a look of such reptilian disgust that you either want to leave the room or slap him, and then leave the room.

So we have a fantastic Scrooge. Do we have a movie? Yes, to a point.

Director Richard Donner's career has been made of muscular, competent action pictures (LETHAL WEAPON, et al). So he may have seemed like an odd choice for a dark Christmas comedy. But recall that most of his movies have a wicked sense of humor (SUPERMAN and MAVERICK). And he knows how to handle effects; the scene with the Jacob Marley character is particularly impressive.

So most of SCROOGE is handled nice and dark, and yet somehow Christmas-y at the same time. The whole picture is bathed in an eery chill, you can feel the cold temperature and terror as Frank's life spins completely out of control. The score is early Danny Elfman, which means it's creepy while having some wit. And the way the story is restructured is mostly succcessful, with some nice curveballs. (One nice twist is that there's no time frame on when the ghosts will appear, so we don't get the usual "at the strike of one!" predictablility.)

So with all the praise going around, what's the problem? Other than unnecessarily splitting the Bob Crachit character between two people (Bobcat Golthwait and Alfre Woodward, both good but without much to do), the whole thing starts to fall apart in the third act. The first two ghosts are funny, creepy and present events that seem more or less real. The future scenes are heavily styilized, in terms of acting and production design. We go from sets designed to look like real places to sets that look like rejected Tim Burton houses. The characters in Frank's life, represented in the future by the same actors with poor age make-up, suddenly play their roles in very heavy-handed ways. Even the unstoppable Karen Allen, who was the best thing about INDY 4 and a lot of other movies, and who is mostly great here, comes off wrong. Had the rest of the hauntings been over the top, it might have worked, but they weren't and so it doesn't.

But nothing in the third ghost scenes prepares us for the finale. After having the bejesus scared out of him, the movie ends with Frank basically having a mental breakdown on National Television. It's not funny, it's not sad, it's not heartwarming. It's just kind of awkward, and it fills the ending with an ambiguity that I'm not sure was intentional.

And then, instead of dealing with the fallout from his live national speech, the movie basically turns into a sing-a-long, with Murray talking into the camera and all the ghosts (including the cadaver of Marley) appearing on a piece of scenery to cheer him on. It's all so very strange, not strange wonderful, just strange strange.

Yet, for all the implosion of the ending, SCROOGE retains great power, and has great laughs. Even as it stumbles across the finish line, it still is one of the few re-tellings of CHRISTMAS CAROL that actually finds new threads in a very well-tread story. I cringe at the ending, but I still rewatch the movie almost every year.

Anyway, how bad can a movie be when it starts with a fake trailer for THE NIGHT THE REINDEER DIED, with Lee Majors as the only man who can save Santa's Workshop from Terrorists? Also, Robert Goulet shows up for a "Cajun Christmas" special, which involves him singing while trying to get away from a hungry alligator. Nice.

RATING: * * * * (out of 5 Stars)

A MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL

It is odd that a movie retelling of a classic tale with Muppets can be so faithful to the source material that it basically plays like the same story, only with Muppets. Don't look at me like that. THE MUPPET SHOW managed to have lots of re-telling of classic stories, only to stand it on its head at odd angles. Even MUPPET TREASURE ISLAND had a musical number that involved hula skirts, and Tim Curry making strange un-pirate like demands.

But the only real change that MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL makes to the source material is to add a unnecessary yet indispensable narrator. Unnecessary because the story is simple enough it doesn't need one, but indispensable because the narrator is Gonzo, who despite all appearances claims to be Charles Dickens. Accompanied by Rizzo the Rat, Gonzo pretty much sticks to the script, but the fact that the script is being performed by a fuzzy blue weirdo is what gives the movie a lot of its mirth.

Michael Caine is Scrooge, and while he doesn't do anything majorly different with the role, he stands out by being... well, Michael Caine. When the man wants to be good, he can be. And here, he is terrific, treating Kermit and the other Muppets more or less as if they were real actors. The better Muppet movies are distinguished by actors who don't act as if they're in a Muppet movie, and Caine is up to the task.

Missing, however, is the Jim Henson sense of the absurd that drives this material over the top. MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL is warm, cute and, unfortunately, a little heavy on the sap. Kermit, in particular, is pretty much wasted as Bob Crachit. He's nice without that subtle wit and occasional temper that makes Kermit a special soul. Here, he's pretty much a gentle pushover. Don't get me started on how they use Ms. Piggy.

The biggest mistake the movie makes, however, are the musical numbers. They're bad. They're pointless. Most of them don't advance the plot one whit. The one exception is "Marley and Marley", which is not only propels the action, but is fun and creepy.


Fortunately, the Ghost of Christmas Present segment is done well, with a giant friendly Fraggle-Rock style giant Muppet. And credit where it is due: the movie actually handles the hardest chapter of "A Christmas Carol", the Ghost of Christmas Future, better than most versions. It doesn't get cute or over the top, but merely shows a cold and desolate future ahead. Even Dickens/Gonzo is put off, telling the audience that "We'll see you for the finale."

The finale, unfortuantely, is yet another trecale-y song. But that's what the fast forward button is for. A MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL remains a pretty-good version of the classic tale, featuring Michael Caine and Muppets. If that sounds like fun to you, then it is! If it doesn't, well, I can't blame you.

RATING: * * * (out of 5 Stars).

P.S. The Fullscreen version of MUPPET on DVD is the "extended version", which features an additional song that is notable because (a) it involves no Muppets whatsoever and (b) it is the most unnecessary of all the songs in the movie. Stick with the Widescreen cut, where you not only have the whole image, but you don't have to sit through three minutes of some woman singing to young Scrooge about she's no longer in love with him.

Holiday Movie MADNESS! Part Two

The madness continues, with more reviews for this holiday season. Notice I didn't say which holiday. You'll see.

I hope to get to SCROOGED, ELF and others as we mosey along, but for today we have the original MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET and MONSTER HOUSE.

Also, the wonderful Jenn Jarecki has a blog called Millie at the Pictures and she has published a write-up on 2012. It's more critical than mine, however, I find little in it that I can disagree with, and I share her desire for a disaster movie script with a bit more respect for the audience. Of course, we're the ones at a disaster movie, so maybe the first step is having the self-respect to not go to a disaster movie. It's a cycle, really.


MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET: REVIEW (1947)


The miracle isn't that Santa Claus is real, and working at Macy's. The miracle is that this movie works at all, and so well.

Even in 1947, the premise was as cloying as a hallmark card. The new Santa at Macys claims he's the real deal, and his ideas are so radical--"If Macy's doesn't have it, I'll send you to someone who does!"-- that they instantly capture the imagination and the wallet of all New Yorkers. And more importantly, they capture the imagination of little Susan Walker (Natalie Wood), who has been raised to believe in practical things, like taxes, realistic dolls and zero imagination. But after one visit on the lap of Santa, real name Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn), and she starts to wonder... what if...

Just writing that paragraph, it sounds all awfully syrupy and too cute. Somehow, it's not. It becomes wonderful and life-affirming, even though it the point of highest action occurs during a state competency hearing.

Maybe it's the economy of storytelling. Like CASABLANCA, made 5 years earlier, the movie moves fast and takes little time to get on with it. It takes a mere 10 minutes to get Kringle off the street and into Macys, and another 10 to set off the central conflict of the film, which is to basically make a believer out of an agnostic child. Also, a snippy faux-psychologist decides that Kringle should be locked up, because he hates him. And joy. And puppies. The point is, there are few scenes establishing things we already know, almost every scene propels the movie forward.

Maybe it's because, for all the talk of faith and belief, the movie stays grounded in realism. If you were to hire someone as Santa and later realize the address he gave is the North Pole, you call a doctor. That's what the people at Macy's do. On the same note, if you were a judge running for re-election, and face with the concept of declaring that, as a matter of law, there is no Santa Claus, you might balk at the prospect. That's what this Judge does here, when a small matter of whether an old man should be committed becomes a referendum on Christmas Spirit.

Maybe it's because for all of its Capra-esque sentiment, there's a healthy verneer of cyncism coating the whole thing. When Santa starts sending customers to other stores, the head of Macy's sneakily--and wisely-- embraces the tide of good will, correctly guessing that the people who think well of Macy's, even if they're not buying something today, will buy something tomorrow. And the Judge's political advisor, Charlie (William Frawley, who played 'Fred' on I LOVE LUCY), has a speech that sounds like the GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, CHRISTMAS EDITION: :

"All right, you go back and tell them that the New York State Supreme Court rules there's no Santa Claus. It's all over the papers. The kids read it and they don't hang up their stockings. Now what happens to all the toys that are supposed to be in those stockings? Nobody buys them. The toy manufacturers are going to like that; so they have to lay off a lot of their employees, union employees. Now you got the CIO and the AF of L against you and they're going to adore you for it and they're going to say it with votes. Oh, and the department stores are going to love you too and the Christmas card makers and the candy companies. Ho ho. Henry, you're going to be an awful popular fella.... "

But mostly I think the movie works because of the performances. Maureen O'Hara and John Paine are pretty bloodless as a couple, but they play their archetypes well- the pragmatic realist versus the idealistic dreamer, although in this case it's the Parade Producer who is the realist and the Property Attorney who is the dreamer. Young Natalie Wood is very effective as the little girl, who is bright and thoughtful and sensible, as supposed to Tim Allen's hateful son in THE SANTA CLAUSE. The Judge and his advisor Charlie are pitch-perfect. But the best performance is Kringle himself, who somehow manages to embody the very soul of the season without any Santa Pyrotechnics. No cookies, no milk, no reindeer, no elves, and while he does wear the suit, he wears it in black or white. Just thoughtful good cheer in the shell of a carefully santizied version of a mentally ill man.

Spoiler Alert: It is very likely that Kris Kringle is not Santa Claus, but an old man living a delusion. However, as his doctor points out, he's not hurting anyone, and in fact makes the lives of everyone around him happier for doing so. The only time he lashes out is against the truly hateful psychologist, and even then, it's a mild smack with a cane. Only a jury of Scrooges would actually vote to convict this old man.

MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET wasn't revolutionary, mind blowing, or epic. It was a simple story, well told, worthy of being retold. That's enough to qualify as a Christmas gem. Just stay away from the remake.

RATING: * * * * (out of 5 stars).

P.S. Also, the 1947 trailer is hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IZr_SvCcXc


MONSTER HOUSE: REVIEW (2006)

MONSTER HOUSE is a perfect little creepy movie for Halloween. A pity it was released in Mid Summer 2006, and that it is currently December, thus making it a holiday movie out of joint. But, alas, Black Friday is when it was on sale at Walmart, so here we are.

An 80's throwback made with modern animation techniques, MONSTER HOUSE concerns a... well, a house that our hero DJ is convinced is alive. And evil. And is hungry. And tonight is Halloween.

It wasn't always this way. First, he was first afraid of his neighbor, Old Man Nebbercracker (Steve Bushemi), who was a cranky coot who literally scream, "You kids stay off my lawn!" One day DJ ventured a little too far, and Nebbercracker pitches such a fit that he keels over on his precious lawn, heart attack.

In a different movie that you've seen before, this little scare would become a heartwarming story about judging strangers, and that the only thing to fear is your own fears. DJ would feel bad, bring Nebbercracker some cookies, and learn some life lessons. But this is a movie called MONSTER HOUSE. In this movie, the only thing to fear is a giant freaking house eating you.

I'm usually a sucker for great animated movies and a terror towards mediocre animated movies, but here my love for drawings that move is neutral. The animation is fine here, but there is nothing about the story that couldn't have been done live action, except for the house, which would have been digital anyway. That isn't a complaint, just a comment. The kids' reactions play well, but I'm sure the live kids would too. The action never really leaves the neighborhood, and the inside of the house could have been a set. It's done well, but the animation neither adds nor detracts for me. Except for the house itself.

Fact: a movie called MONSTER HOUSE would be a bit of a rip-off to come all this way and not have there be an actual house that is a monster. Well, the house IS a monster, and it is one hell of a terror. A giant man-eating house may sound silly, but it plays like the better books of Stephen King, and more importantly, it just looks scary.



Show me a person who is not afraid of being eaten by a giant moving house, and I will show you a fool. DJ, after making the requiste rounds of trying to get adults to believe him, decides to take on the house with his best friend Chowder (Sam Lerner) and token girl Jenny (Spencer Locke), who they befriend after rescuing her from the house. Less lucky are some of the other adults, most of whom get chomped up in scenes that are easily as scary as anything in most horror movies. I'm not quite sure how Sony thought this movie would do well with kids of all ages, as it probably sent most of them running for the aisles in terror. But I'm glad they agreed to produce it anyway, since it has a wicked sense of humor, genuine scares and some sequences of real imagination.

The movie peaks at about 3/4ths through when the kids get swallowed but go down the wrong pipe and are still alive. With an actual trip inside the belly of the beast, the movie provides some insight into how the house came to be, and pulls off a neat trick by showing that you can a) plausibly explain why a house came to be haunted with malevolent evil and b) find pathos in such a situation. Neat.

Alas, that leaves the last act, a shrieking action climax where our hero must literally throw a lit stick of dynamite into the mouth of the house. The humor and spookiness drains away, and all that's left is basically a suburban variation on the ol' slay-the-dragon routine. It's not a fatal blow, but for a movie this clever, you'd expect more of a neat twist.

Still, for about 70 of it's 90 minutes, MONSTER HOUSE is good, scary fun. If there is a shelf for fun, overblown movies about suburban kids going on impossible adventures, it belongs right between MONSTER SQUAD and THE GOONIES.

For some of you, what I just said amounts to heresy. And yes, maybe MONSTER HOUSE is not as over-the-top and loony as those movies. But the effects are better, and there's less racism and homophobia. So, you know. That's a fair trade.

RATING: * * * (out of 5 stars)

Christmas Movie Madness: Part One

Merry Damn Christmas, Everyone.

It's November 28th, and, through restraint, I've managed to watch only four Christmas movies before December. Already, with this much Ho Ho Hoing , I feel duty bound to inform you that not all Christmas movies are created equal, and more importantly, NOT ALL CHRISTMAS MOVIES AGE WELL. This may sound obvious, but how often do the words "Holiday Classic" get thrown around? They were even thrown at the Jim Carrey HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS, which, as well all know, was a real piece of shit.

Anyway. Four Christmas movies before December. More to come after that. Here is my report on movies 1 and 2:

DISNEY'S A CHRISTMAS CAROL (2009)


At this point, it is harder to do a relevant CHRISTMAS CAROL than it is do a relevant HAMLET. This because, unlike HAMLET, everyone actually remembers what happens in CHRISTMAS CAROL. Scrooge hates everyone. Scrooge gets the bejesus scared out of him by his dead partner. Scrooge is visited by three ghosts. Scrooge feels nostalgic, self-pity, joy, sorrow, terror and guilt; respectively. Scrooge decides to buy a giant turkey, help a handicapped child and generally stop being a rotter. High fives are exchanged all around in the afterlife.

It's a story that's been told by Albery Finney, Patrick Stewart, Bill Murray and Michael Caine. Of these arguably Patrick Stewart was the most successful, although Michael Caine was accompanied by a a gaggle of muppets, which counts for something.

And what does Robert Zemeckis, who created WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, THE POLAR EXPRESS and to a much lesser extent BEOWULF bring to his helming of the story? A digital Jim Carrey, digital Gary Oldman, digital Bob Hoskins, some 3D snow, a truly creepy vision of London ghosts and not much else.

I understand the appeal of putting Jim Carrey into a classic retelling of a tale (profit must be had), but it was a mistake to put him as scrooge. For Pixar's wonderful UP, they dug up Ed Asner, who is not only a good actor but has a voice informed with the scars and wisdom of age. Here, we have Jim Carrey doing a very credible old man impression, which sounds uncannily like Jim Carrey doing a very credible old man impression. They also cast him as all the ghosts, perhaps it would have been wiser to follow through and have Carrey play Bob Crachit, Marley, etc.; and then gotten a great older actor to play Scrooge. For my money, I'd love to see a digital Morgan Freeman, Jack Nicholson or even Anthony Hopkins tackle scrooge. You could still use Carrey to get in the kids, but the performance would be something other than a nice trick. Hell, they could have even gone with digital Bob Hoskins, who is easily the most believable 'digital' version in the film, in his small roll as Fizzwick. (Previously, this role has been tackled by Fozzie Bear.)


If Carrey gets the 'a for effort but c for achievement' award, Gary Oldman gets the 'WTF mate?' award for least convincing digital performance. His face is immoblizied, his movements lifeless, and ultimately makes for a poor Bob Crachit. This is hard to believe and harder to write, because I used to believe Gary Oldman could do anything, and in the past, he usually has. He even makes for, here a particularly terrifying Jacob Marley, in a scene sure to terrify children of all ages. Strange that of all the roles, Bob Crachit is the one to take him down.

Unlike HAMLET, all versions of A CHRISTMAS CAROL can be judged by two standards- do you believe in Scrooge's redemption, and do they get you in the Christmas Spirit or not? Sure, SCROOGED had its problems and MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL is as light as a feather, but both movies achieve these humble goals. Most versions of CHRISTMAS CAROL do. Zemeckis's version, for all its tricks, is ultimately a hollow re-run of an often told story. I went to be propelled into the Christmas Spirit in IMAX 3D. I got my 3D, but no Christmas spirit.

Finally, is there a more worthless role in any CHRISTMAS CAROL than Tiny Tim? Every line out of the little cherub's mouth is a pithy notable quotable, and then he gets to upstage himself by dying and leaving behind naught but a little crutch to propel Scrooge's pity. It's the biggest flaw of the story, and it is particularly glaring here.

I have and will continue to defend Zemeckis's POLAR EXPRESS to the ends of the earth, as it was exciting, funny, sad, triumphant and haunting. None of those words apply here. It's not as bad as BEOWULF, but lord, it ain't very good.

RATING: * * (out of 5 stars)


THE SANTA CLAUSE (1994)


I loved Tim Allen as a kid. So did most of America. I recall believing HOME IMPROVEMENT being the funniest live action sitcom on television.

Have you seen that show recently? With the exception of Tim Allen's assistant Al Borland (Richard Karn), that show was a laugh-free zone. Every single episode boiled down to Tim Allen being an idiot, and his neighbor pointing out that he's an idiot, and Tim Allen trying to make up for being an idiot. I formally apologize to my parents for making them watch it.

I also formally apologize for making them take me to see THE SANTA CLAUSE twice. This was a made for TV movie that somehow got released in theaters, and kids, who loved Tim Allen and continue to love Santa, flocked to it and helped it make 140 million dollars, domestically, in 1996 dollars.

Did I really fall for this tripe? Did I think the phrase "We're your worst nightmare- elves with attitude!" was clever? Did I not pause for a moment to consider how deeply creepy the premise is? Not so much that Tim Allen can become Santa Claus, but that the way he replaces Santa is by KILLING HIM. Okay, okay, so he just calls out "Hey Buddy!" and Santa falls off a roof and dies.

To back up a moment, if you were lucky enough to avoid this movie in the theater: Tim Allen accidentally kills Santa, puts on the dead man's pants, and because he fails to read the fine print on a business card, forms a contract to become the new Santa Claus (he didn't read the Santa CLAUSE, see? See?) He then walks up a magical ladder, suffers an animatronic reindeer's farts, falls for his brat son's guilt trip and becomes Santa Claus for the evening. This entails insulting some small children and generally being an ass. Later he ends up at the North Pole. Santa's Workshop, which resembles a cheap set, is a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.

The Elves claim to be 200 years old, but look uncannily like smarmy children. Allen has the following exchange with a tiny child actor who, in real life, couldn't be older than 13:

Scott Calvin: You know, you look pretty good for your age.
Little Elf Judy: Thanks, but I'm seeing someone in wrapping.

Part of the problem is Allen's smarmy, not funny. jokey persona and is occasionally racist and at the very least insipid. But give the man a little slack, he's also up against a screenplay worthy of Chevy Chase. (It was written by the same brain trust that came up with SPACE JAM) The story sets up Allen as a toy-maker who is divorced, but still wants his son to have a happy home and believe in Santa and the spirit of Christmas. If they had gone all the way and made him a real louse, or a scrooge, or at least some kind of hurdle, they might have gotten something out of this. Instead, we basically have a nice guy who gets the best job in the world, whose biggest trouble is convincing his insufferable son Charlie (Eric Lloyd) to shut up about the fact that he's Santa.


It's hard to identify exactly what it is about little Charlie that made me consider infanticide. Maybe it's his petulant whiny bleating, his little doe-like eyes that well up at the smallest obstacle, or the fact that he often proclaims "you never let me do what I want!" In any case, he's an annoying brat who doesn't listen to anyone, and pretty much spits on all the people trying to take care of him. To be clear, Charlie needs to fall off a roof.

The film's lone moments of wit come from the ever-dependable Judge Reinhold, who plays Charlie's stepdad Dr. Neil. Not only is Dr. Neil actually a nice guy who seems relatively sane, but he gets the best line in the movie, which concerns an Oscar Meyer Weenie Whistle. The movie also gets a little mileage out of a Christmas Eve visit to Dennys, which is inexplicably filled with Japanese Businessman on one side and, more plausibly, divorced fathers and their children on the other. Had they stuck with the concept of a divorced Dad trying to make a merry Christmas with his son, this movie could have worked. Well, they would have also had to eliminate the whole "Kill Santa" element.

There was a movie released in 1985 called SANTA CLAUS: THE MOVIE. It's a train wreck of good intentions and bad screenwriting, which then rolls over a bus of over-acting by John Lithgow and Dudley Moore. However, for all of its faults, it at least got the basic concept of Santa Claus right. THE SANTA CLAUSE thinks its clever because there's an elf that resembles Q of the Bond series, Comet farts a lot and Tim Allen keeps making cracks about the fact that Santa was murdered because he fell off his roof. Because really, what is Santa Claus, if not some jerk who picked up a dead man's pants and didn't read the fine print?

Sometimes, a film becomes more than the sum of its parts. This time it works in reverse. Even though it's probably just a collection of mediocre claptrap, I firmly believe that when you put it all in perspective. THE SANTA CLAUSE is of the worst Christmas Movies out there, and yes, I have seen GRINCH and SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS.

RATING: * Star (out of 5)

Coming soon... looking back at MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET (Original) and ELF. Much better movies.

FANTASTIC MR. FOX: REVIEW

Joy. That is the feeling one gets watching THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX.

Joy at the wonderful strangeness of the characters, who are flawed and stiffly animated and selfish and yet so human. They are also wild animals.

Joy that you are watching a movie unlike any other, but with the added bonus that you don't want to slit your wrists at the end. (See the brilliant but horrifically sad ARE, WHERE THE WILD THINGS)

Joy that now there are two stop-motion animation masterpieces produced in the same year. (CORALINE is the other.)

Joy that Wes Anderson has broken out of his tunnel-vision, working in a new medium and actually having a plot, while still keeping all of his essential Wes Anderson-ness.

Joy that you're watching the second-best Roald Dahl adapation of all time. This is no small achievement, considering how many have tried and failed to capture the right tone of his work. (No prizes for guessing the best adaptation.)

And finally, joy that this is the first children's movie where they found to way to have the little woodland creatures swear with impunity, and yet offend no one. I'd tell you how they do it, but it's too good of a secret to spill. Let's just say it's more sophisticated than bleeping, and more fun, too.

FANTASTIC MR. FOX is a toy box of a movie, overflowing with invention, random adventure, real fun and good cheer. The plot is a lark, basically a 90 minute roadrunner and coyote story, only replace the road-runner with George Clooney as a fox named Mr. Fox, and the coyote with Michael Gambon as the most hateful hunter in the county, named Bean.

At one point, threatening letters are exchanged between the two nemisi:

Bean: Why did he send us a letter written with letters cut out of a magazine?

Underling: Well, you did the same thing when you sent your letter to him.

Bean: I don't trust this guy.

It all got started because Fox decided to steal some chickens, geese and hard cider from the farmes Boggis, Bunce and Bean, respectively. The Farmers decide to shoot Fox for his trouble, but only get his tail. Fox decides to tunnel all of their chickens, geese and hard cider. The Farmers come back with bulldozers. Eventually, all out war is waged between the animals and the farmers.

The plot is a lark, but it's more plot than Wes Anderson has usually gotten involved with, and it is enough to hang scene after scene of comic invention. A few thoughts sneak in, surprisingly deep ones, but don't worry: the life lessons are kept to a minimum.

The voice work is top drawer, not only in terms of talent (how often do you get Meryl Streep to play your straight man?), but that talent is actually used to create fantasitc characters, as supposed to creating a fish who looks like Will Smith and sounds just like Will Smith. (See TALE, SHARK) Consider Bill Murray as the badger lawyer named Badger. Badger is not just memorable because he's a badger in a suit that sounds just like Bill Murray, but because he actually tries to give good lawyerly advice. And when the advice doesn't work, he snarls and tries to claw his clients. He's also a demolition expert, which provokes this exchange:

Fox: Demolition Expert? What? Since when?

Badger: Since forever!

There's a nice current that runs through the story about wild animals trying to be civilized, reverting to wild-ness and then apologizing later. At least they apologize when they rever, I'll take these animals over the farmers anyday: Boggis eats 12 whole chickens a day, Bunce only eats donuts stuffed with foie de gras, and Bean employs a Rat with a switchblade to protect his hard cider. That last one doesn't sound so bad, until you realize the Rat has the voice of Willem Dafoe. When you send a Rat with a switchblade and the voice of Willem Dafoe after someone's children, as Bean does here, you are basically FedExing nightmares to children everyone. The farmers are so hateful, the children have a little song that they sing about how bad they are. Badger knows, he has it on file at his law office.


Tying the whole thing together is Clooney as Mr. Fox, who is one of the more appealing protganists of animated film history. He the talent and brilliant-but-doomed visions of Jack Skellington, the family dynamics and mid-life crisis drama of Mr. Incredible, with the same swagger as the Disney Fox Robin Hood. In other words, he's smart, ambitious, cocky, makes mistakes, doesn't listen, but is capable of invention and genius and can get you out of a tight spot. He's probably somehow related to the Disney family, as when we first meet him he's listening to the Davy Crockett theme song.

The actual animation style is blocky, awkward and rough. And it's gorgeous. Sure, it looks like it was done by kids over a year in their basement, and that's the charm. As rough and tumble as it is, it gives the world of animated movies new life in this age of pixels. Pixar can only make one movie a year, and while waiting for it we have to wade through the MONSTERS VS. ALIENS, SHARK TALE, PLANET 51, CHICKEN LITTLE, SHREK 3, OPEN SEASON, ICE AGE 1 and 2 AND 3, and on and on.

THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX has everything that a Roald Dahl story has: humour, meaning, beauty, a dash of darkness, a touch of cruelty, just desserts for the nasty people and hope for the good ones. But more than that, it makes you feel good, and not in obvious ways. It has characters you want to get to know better. It features lots of woodland creatures dancing, not because they can dance well or in time, but because it's good to be alive and dancing is fun. It has a man on a banjo for little to no reason. And it ends on an oddly quiet but perfect beat, with a tiny speech that is more inspiring than it has to be or wants to be. In short, it is the best movie I've seen all year.

RATING: * * * * * (out of 5 Stars)

P.S. The woodland creatures also have a game called Whackbat. Owen Wilson is on hand, as Coach Otter, to explain the game:

"Basically, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls 'hotbox!'. Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine."

There are helpful diagrams with lines and X's and O's that go along with the speech. If this doesn't make you smile, I don't know what to tell you.

THIS IS IT: REVIEW

This is a movie for two types of people. Michael Jackson fans, and those who work on producing live events (theater/music/dance.)

Those expecting a freak show or a car wreck will be out 12 bucks and be bored. Jackson's voice wasn't so great, but it's functional, and more importantly, he could still move. He also had the world's best back up singers, dancers and band behind him, and when you've got that, you could be Dan Akyroyd and sound fantastic.

So it's not a fly on the wall at a disaster. But it's not exactly a celebration either. You can tell Michael Jackson was holding back, at least in terms of singing, because these were the dress rehearsals. At one point, when he really nails one his hits, he shakes his head and says "I shouldn't have done that." The crew eggs him on and he retorts, "No, no. I need to save my voice."

Which makes sense, and lends authenticity, but makes it something less than the most intense music concert movie ever, as promised by the ads. However, that's also what makes it interesting on a separate level, on the production level.

If you have ever worked on a live music, theater or dance show, you must see this film. You will see the best artists and technicians in the world doing some of their best work. Whether it's lighting, choreography, vocals or even the pyro guy; Jackson hired the best for his comeback, and you get to see them make their craft. Sometimes, it's more interesting to watch an artist noodling around with an idea than to actually see the finished product.

We do get to see the finished video that was to follow some of the songs, which is fantastic. Jackson inserts himself into an old Bogart movie, and they get into a shoot out during SMOOTH CRIMINAL. THRILLER gets some 3D effects and new zombies. Although my favorite may be the relatively unknown song THEY DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT US, where ten dancers get multiplied into an infinite field of jack-booted thugs from the future doing drill routines to the beat. It's about as cool as this stuff gets.



The title of the movie is actually pretty sad. All Jackson wanted to do before he retired was give the world one last show, a show that could be called THE show. And based on this movie, it would have worked. Jackson's voice wasn't the best, but he still knew how to kick some ass in the realm of the pop spectacle. Ticketholders would have gotten their money's worth. He would have tasted that glory again. Instead, this is it. This is all he and we get. A fitting farewell, sure. But proof that he had more to do.

RATING: * * * (out of 5 stars)

P.S. Add a fourth star if you are a theater/music/dance professional.

P.P.S. There is one video and song that really bombs, his HEAL THE WORLD number. It's an awkward environmental message that doesn't really work. If you rent the movie, fast forward past this part.

2012: REVIEW

The Criterion Collection released an edition of ARMAGEDDON, with the defense that it was a perfect example of the big, overblown mid-90's disaster movie, which was the popular style of the time. They had the right idea, but they picked the wrong movie.

I enjoyed ARMAGEDDON, it was fun for what it was, but if you ask someone "you know, that big 90's disaster movie", they'll say, "Oh, you mean INDEPENDENCE DAY?"

As dumb as it was, INDEPENDENCE DAY, like GROUNDHOG DAY, has entered our collective imagination as a reference point. Why? Because it was fun, because it was huge, because it made a star out of Will Smith, and to put it simply, 9/11. When dust clouds were rolling down the REAL streets of New York, all I remember thinking is I've seen this before... and I had, only there were aliens, and Harvey Fierstein, and the Tin Man, and, and...

It's not director/creator/crazy german Ronald Emmerich's fault that his movie accurately portrayed real terrorist devastation. He just thinks big, big and dumb: STARGATE, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, GODZILLA, etc. Well, it's eight years later, and time has made INDEPENDENCE DAY slowly slide back into being fun and not at all and invitation to post traumatic stress inducer. There's something somehow comforting in, with the economy in the crapper and people wanting to blow us up, watching The End Of The World As We Know It because ALIENS HAVE LANDED. Or GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL US ALL. Or THERE IS A GIANT MONSTER AND OH MY GOD I HAVEN'T TOLD MY DAUGHTER I LOVED HER AIIEEEEE

So, in short, not his fault that terrorist attacks made me think of his movie. It IS his fault that he keeps making the same movie over and over again. 2012 is the same movie he has made before, only bigger. But you knew that. I knew that. Your dog knows that. The only question is, does 2012 deliver? The answer is yes. Oh my, yes.

30 minutes of exposition and ominous portents, followed by 2 hours of demolition derby. Everything explodes in this movie. Everything. If there's something that's a famous landmark, it blows up. And it is silly. Delightfully silly. A man says to his girlfriend, "I feel like something's come between us," and then a giant fissure opens between them. A giant plane is revealed, and some kid says, "it's huge!", and a nearby Russian mobster growls, "It's Russian." A noble scientist says, "If we don't open these doors, we lose our humanity!" And someone replies, "Oh, just do it then." Actually, that was the gay couple sitting next to me, but you get the general idea.

And yet, there is a certain baseline competency (see Howard, Ron) that Emmerich brings to his movies that makes them satisfying, if nothing else. He likes the ominous forboding. He lingers on his effects, inviting us to see how big, crazy and intricate they are. There is no quick cutting and shaky cam. It may not be new, but after a summer of big budget disasters, it is comforting.

The screenplay is nothing new or original, but the same story we've seen before about lots of individuals coming together to face an imminent threat. This is also somewhat comforting. Stock characters work if the performers are good enough, and with John Cusack, Danny Glover and Woody Harrelson (as the requisite crazy guy) on board, they work here. And Emmerich keeps topping himself with the destruction.

Look, you pays your money, you takes your chances. 2012 is as advertised. You want wholesale world desctruction? You got it. You want memorable characters, witty dialogue and smart plot twists? STAR TREK comes out on tuesday on DVD, and UP is available.

RATING: * * * (out of 5 stars)

P.S. There is one (1) intriguing idea in the movie. The noble scientist remarks that, just because he happens to be reading some guy's book that no one bought, and he just happens to be one of the few that will survive the cataclycsm, that book will endure for generations while other books don't, by chance. Should Emmerich be right and 2012 actually happen and there's only room on board for one disaster movie to make it through the ages, I hope it's THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE. You heard me. There has never been a better disaster movie than THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE.

P.P.S. THE PATRIOT is Emmerich's worst movie. Even worse than GODZILLA. You heard me.

SNATCH: REVIEW

Rewatching SNATCH after six, seven years on the DVD shelf plays about the same as seeing your ‘cool’ Uncle a few years after college. He’s still a good guy, but what was once ‘cool’ now seems disorganized and immature. Just substitute that demo album with a search for a diamond and that motorcycle for Brad Pitt in an unintelligible accent. The first time around, I admired the fact that it dared to not make sense or add up to anything. This time, I found myself getting frustrated and at times bored with the ever-looping stories, characters, missed connections and tough guy talk.

Unspooled, there are basically two plots, that play on parallel tracks that sometimes interect. One involves a perfectly cut diamond stolen by the excellently named Frankie Four Fingers (Bencio Del Toro), and the series of men who kill each other to try to get it. The other involves a boxing promoter named Turkish (a young Jason Staham), who gets mixed up with a gypsy boxer named Mickey (a young-ish Brad Pitt) who is an expert at the rope-a-dope.

The boxer plotline begins slow and silly, the diamond plotline starts with a quick-cutting hold up and violence. But it’s the boxer plotline that eventually pays off, proving the closest thing to an emotional connection with any of the characters. The diamond plotline, on the other hand, bites off more than writer/director Guy Ritchie can chew: consider that in the pursuit of the diamond are Frankie Four Fingers (who doesn’t last long), Cousin Avi (Dennis Farina), Bullet Tooth Tony (Vinnie Jones), Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija) and Brick Top (Alan Ford). While they’re all gifted character actors with great character names, it’s only Brick Top who makes any real impression beyond surface notes, partly because Alan Ford gnashes teeth expertly, but mostly because he’s a guy named Brick Top who feeds his enemies to pigs. There’s also Sol, Vinne and Tyrone, who pull off the world’s worst robbery. And Gorgeous George, the Boxer. And Doug the Head, the jeweler. And, and…

Are you overwhelmed? I loved this rogue’s gallery in college. I couldn’t get enough of it. Now, I watched with the sneaking suspicion that Guy Ritchie probably wrote the whole thing in a drunken weekend, and no one had the heart to tell him that one character with a great name is a good idea, two is a clever idea and seven is just playing with yourself on Final Draft.

Parts of the movie remain fantastic. The opening credits sequence is a masterstroke, introducing a seemingly endless cast all at once. Pretty much any scene with Brad Pitt hits exactly the right note. The use of music remains is on par with Scorcese, songs that not only underscore the action but add to it. Individually lines of dialogue sneak through and dig into your memory, and there are two monologues by especially nasty men that are perfect. And the boxing fight at the end of the movie is about as good as these scenes get.

But other parts show their age. The movie is over-narrated by Jason Staham, often telling us things we don’t need to know or already can guess. It doesn’t help that back in 2000, Jason Staham had a promising career ahead of him. Now in 2009, he’s made one decent movie in the past 9 years, and even in that movie he gives the same damn performance. In other words, it’s not that Turkish is cool and detached, it’s that Jason Staham has only one note to play and plays it all the time. Many of the plot twists are glaringly arbitrary, artificially adding length to a movie that already feels long at 102 minutes. And in the end, a movie about a search for a treasure means nothing when the men searching for the treasure are ultimately nothing more than cleverly named stick figures who swear a lot.

I mentioned individual lines of dialogue as being great, because overall Ritchie writes his characters in asked and answered style, like this:

Avi: Why do they call him the Bullet-Dodger?

Bullet Tooth Tony: 'Cause he dodges bullets, Avi.

Cute. Now imagine it again:

Tommy: Are you sayin' I can't shoot?

Turkish: No Tommy, I'm not saying you can't shoot. I know you can't shoot.

And again…

Doug the Head: Slow down, Franky, my son. When in Rome...

Franky Four Fingers: I am not in Rome, Doug. I am in a rush.

And again:

Vinny: This is a shotgun, Sol.

Sol: It's a fucking anti-aircraft gun, Vincent.

Vinny: Well I wanna raise some pulses, don't I?

Sol: You'll raise Hell. Never mind pulses.

You have now obtained a masters in Guy Ritchie dialogue. One exchange is funny, two is clever, nineteen is….

So what is this movie about, really? That the underworld of London has shady characters? Stop the presses. Don’t trust a gypsy boxer? A man who knows nothing about diamonds finds one when he adopts a dog to fool the police? What?

Not that it would matter if was endlessly entertaining. You can have zero point if you’re endlessly entertaining. Which SNATCH was, back in 2000. Now, it’s 2009. Of course, Ocean’s 11 came out in 99, and it’s aged just fine. And that one had 11 characters, not counting Andy Garcia. SNATCH remains fun, but what it really needed was a rewrite and an editor.

And get a hair cut, hippie.

RATING: * * * (Out of five)

P.S.: One more, but it’s a good one:

Customs Agent: Anything to declare?

Cousin Avi: Yeah. Don’t go to England.

THREE AMIGOS and FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF

Some movies ripen with age. Others, rot.

Both FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF and THREE AMIGOS came out in 1986. I have/had fond memories of watching and rewatching both on basic cable sometime in the early 90's.
Inspired by being tired, I decided to pop them both in the DVD wayback machine and see how good they still were. Here are the results.

Watching FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF after surviving high school is a strangely rewarding experience. Some things are not as funny as I remember them, but for every old joke comes two more good ones out of the woodwork that I didn't even get as a kid.

Some of what seemed daring in 86, or 92, or whenever I first saw the movie, now seems quaint. A movie character talking straight to the camera? Text appearing onscreen to establish a point? A random music number?! Yeah, we get that a lot and have gotten it a lot since then. If not through rip-off films, than at least through many, many seasons of BLIND DATE.

But it's still a fun movie, and while the overall arc is predictable- they have a great day and learn life lessons!- the individual twists and turns are not. How many teenage comedies have a stop over in an art museum? Or make time for a subplot involving parking lot attendants who drive at fast speeds to the STAR WARS theme? Or point out that, if you marry the first person who is nice to you, it will probably end badly? Or have a visit from the singing nurse who likes to... er... 'pluck'. (Quite possibly the second funniest singing telegram joke in the movies) (No prizes for guessing the funniest singing telegram joke)

The movie also gets a lot of mileage out of Dean of Students Rooney (Jeffrey Jones), a man who we feel bad after a dog has messed up his face, but not bad enough to want to take it back. Jeffrey Jones, John Hughes found the perfect villain for a movie this light- someone who takes himself completely seriously, even in no one else in the movie does. And the subplots about the efforts to "save ferris" at the school generate constant laughs, or at least chuckles.

Perhaps the most striking thing is that while Ferris Bueller is the protagonist, he is not the hero. Oh sure, he's on screen most of the time, has the best lines and gets away with everything. (If you ever forget why you ever thought Matthew Broderick was funny or talented, like I have after his recent movies, re-watch this movie to remind yourself.) But while Bueller had a certain appeal back in the early Clinton years, now, the star of this movie is definitely Cameron (Alan Ruck). What was once the mopey sidekick is now the emotional lynchpin of the story. Cameron is the only one with anything really on the line. Even if Bueller does get caught- which is really his only worry in the world- one need not worry about Bueller. You could easily see him get expelled from his school, only to end up walking out of Yale with countless job offers. But Cameron has problems, both real and imagined, and it is his growth that gives the movie soul. It is he that sends the car through the window, and decides to make a stand, just for the principle of taking a stand. And while Bueller makes time to propose to his girlfriend (Mia Sara), it is Cameron that he stops the parade for to sing "Twist and Shout."

In short, FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF now seems less like a middle finger to the establishment, and more like a story about the happy friend who always had it easy trying to help the sad friend who never caught a break, also starring the happy friend's girlfriend as the third wheel. This is not a bad thing. Many movie characters say "this is the best day of my life", but when Cameron says it, you believe it. Part 80's time capsule, part high school parody, FERRIS qualifies as a mini classic not because it achieves anything great, but because it so easily makes you smile.

THREE AMIGOS, on the other hand, is not as funny as I remember it. In fact, not very funny at all. But as an added bonus, it is racist, stilted, strange and represents some kind of low point for Steve Martin and Martin Short; although to be fair, it's a mid career point for Chevy Chase. I laughed a lot during FERRIS BUELLER, which is what made me pop in THREE AMIGOS to continue the trend. But then the laughter stopped, and a depressing silence settled in.

Scene after scene clangs to the floor, without laughs or purpose which is odd when you consider the director is John Landis. This is the same man who gave us BLUES BROTHERS, COMING TO AMERICA and ANIMAL HOUSE? And even to a lesser extent, TRADING PLACES and SPIES LIKE US? Of course, he also gave us BLUES BROTHERS 2000, but this was 1986! He hadn't departed from the land of funny yet! What gives?

The concept is funny: three out of work actors who played silent screen desperadoes are summoned to Mexico, for what they assume will be a publicity appearance, and find they've actually been summoned to fight a local bandit. You will recall this same basic plot from THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, or if you don't, you can also recall it from A BUGS LIFE. It is an old standby, and that's no excuse for how bad this movie is. It's also no excuse for why I thought this film was funny as a kid.

Consider this following bit of dialogue, after the amigos see a plane:

Chevy Chase: What is it doing here?
Martin Short: I think it's a mail plane.
Steve Martin: How can you tell?
Martin Short: Didn't you notice its little balls?

Martin Short proceeds to laugh hysterically at his own joke, which is not funny, which I guess is the real joke... that he's stupid, I guess. Steve Martin then laughs at him, playing the reaction as "I hear your joke and it is not funny because I know funny" and Chevy Chase stares off into the distance, squinting, playing the reaction as "Either I don't get it or I'm not paying attention in this scene." In fact, this little bit of comedic celluloid death is a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with the entire movie.

Short is playing the dumb earnest guy, which is not exactly his strong suit (you don't hire Martin Short to play dumb, you hire him to chew up the scenery). Steve Martin is playing the "I am smarter than you, the script and the audience watching this movie" version of Steve Martin, which is the furthest thing from funny that Steve Martin can do. That leaves Chevy Chase, standing around waiting for a paycheck, which is pretty much what Chevy Chase always does.

If you grew up on this movie, you are probably wondering why I am being so harsh. The answer is: because I grew up on this movie, and god, is it bad. Maybe it's because it's so predictable. FERRIS BUELLER at least had the sense that you weren't sure what was going to happen next, here, the movie calls out every development miles in advance. The creepy German says to be on the lookout for his weird friends? Why, of course the Amigos show up next! They treat these dandies with respect, you see, because they think they are Germans! Sigh.

Oh, there are the few good parts, which you no doubt remember: the villain's discussion of the word plethora, the shooting of the invisible swordsman and the music number where the horses jump in it. But for every good part, there are other parts that you remember being funny but in fact, aren't. The singing bush? It never actually pays off. The Amigos actual numbers? Boring and tedious. Even the music number with the horses suffers from how the awkward choice to set the whole thing on an obviously fake set. Sometimes a fake set is used to make a point, but when the rest of the movie is shot on location, I missed the point or the joke of a campfire scene behind a painted sunset.

The movie was funny when I was 12. Probably because it had three comedians who I knew (or decided I knew) were funny, in funny costumes, being cowboys. But over time, what was a funny light comedy becomes nothing more than three overpaid stars on the wrong comic page, strutting about on an expensive production without point or purpose. I was going to write "flailing about", but quite frankly, this movie needed more flailing. Or at least something that was more intense than sitting in a funny hat, waiting for the jokes to come.

Comedy, especially when it involves a lot of very funny but different people, is nothing without stakes or timing. The great comedies involve characters with everything on the line, who are actively invested in the events unfolding (GROUNDHOG DAY, GHOSTBUSTERS, BEST IN SHOW). But barring that, you can even have a very funny movie without emotional investment, if the jokes come fast enough and the timing is perfect (CLUE, THE NAKED GUN, AIRPLANE!)
John Landis should know, after all, he has made both types of comedies. Here, he made neither, and while he fooled me at 12, he ain't gonna fool me again.

You think I'm being mean to this little ol' 80's movie? Rent it again. I dare you. See if you laugh, or if instead you force yourself to make sounds that could qualify as laughter, to fool yourself into having a good time.

FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF: * * * * Stars (out of 5 stars)

THREE AMIGOS: * Stars (out of 5 stars)

P.S. To be fair, THREE AMIGOS does have a villain as funny as Principle Rooney, and his name is El Guapo (Alfonso Arau). He's the one who has a discussion of the word "plethora", and he is an example of what this movie could have been. I was reminded of Miguel Sandoval, who played the villainous drug dealer in the similarly-good-concept-awful-execution THE CREW. The one genuinely hilarious moment in that movie was his, where, after his goons accidentally burned down his own warehouse, he says, "You know what I am, you guys? A cliche'."

P.P.S. When was the last time Chevy Chase was funny? That's easy: Norm MacDonald's under-appreciated DIRTY WORK, where he played a gleefully corrupt doctor. When was Chevy Chase ever funny? That's harder: a complete analysis of IMDB turns up only five movies: FUNNY FARM, NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VACATION, NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CHRISTMAS VACATION, NATIONAL LAMPOON'S EUROPEAN VACATION and CADDYSHACK.

Don't believe me? His last 20 years or so reveals the following evidence: MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN, FLETCH LIVES, CADDYSHACK II, NOTHING BUT TROUBLE, SNOW DAY, COPS AND ROBBERSONS, MAN OF THE HOUSE, VEGAS VACATION, ZOOM!, THE KARATE DOG, and the upcoming HOT TUB TIME MACHINE, NOT ANOTHER NOT ANOTHER MOVIE and GOOSE ON THE LOOSE.

Here is the trailer for GOOSE ON THE LOOSE. It also stars Tom Arnold as the voice of the Goose.

http://www.parkentertainment.com/goose.html

REVOLVER: A KIND OF REVIEW

Brett Weiner, this one's for you.

You warned me about this movie. The reviews were toxic, as it was made at the height of Guy Ritchie being sucked into Madonna's Kabballah obsession. Other than Jason Staham, the only claim to fame in terms of casting was Andre 3000, that guy who played Big Pussy on the Sopranos, and the animated corpse of Ray Liotta.

I knew it was probably going to be bad, but I have a soft spot for Guy Ritchie. LOCK STOCK and SNATCH were a hell of a lot of fun. I haven't seen SWEPT AWAY, reviewed as the worst movie of the decade, but I'm willing to bet that Madonna can talk a lot of men into stupid things, so I won't hold that against him. Lord knows I've been talked into bad ideas before.

I still wasn't prepared for the three (3!) quotes about knowing your enemy that started the movie. Starting any movie with a quote on the screen is bad enough, but three? Really?

Anyway, the movie starts out with all of those quotes, some whiny narration from Jason Staham, and as mentioned, the animated corpse of Ray Liotta. Oh, and Jason Staham can correctly guess coin tosses, but hates elevators. And some guys get shot. It's like The Transporter directed by Darren Aronofsky.

So about 10 minutes into the movie, having no idea what was going on, other than Ray Liotta doesn't look so good, I dug up the short spoiler from moviepooper.com:

"Avi (Andre Benjamin) and Zach (Vincent Pastore) are the men who were on either side of Jake Green (Jason Statham) in prison. All their methods were an attempt to apply "The Formula", and thus save Jake's life."

That didn't help. I looked at the 'long spoiler':

"Jake Green decides not to kill Dorothy Macha (Ray Liotta), finally figuring out that the mysterious Sam Gold is actually part of his psyche. After a confrontation in a stalled elevator, Jake leaves that part of him behind, finally becoming his own person. After coming back to the loansharks, Avi and Zach, he finally realizes that they were the two prisoners on either side of him in the cell block, the ones who developed The Formula (the ideas allowing Jake to win any game of chance, and also what made him so good at chess). The two had been manipulating him from the moment he got out of prison (and all the way through the film, as well), in an effort to get him to realize that his mind was the real enemy, and not the people around him."

Based upon my ten minutes and this paragraph, I have decided to not finish REVOLVER. It's ten minutes of my life I'll never get back, but I reckoned I saved 100 by reading the 30 second spoiler. Remember: the real enemy is in your mind.

To those that would say this review is a total cop-out, you are correct. To those who rant at me as to why I waste my time watching godawful movies all the way through, you have won this round.

RATING: DNF (Did Not Finish)

P.S. Everyone gets one. In the case of Guy Ritchie, he gets SHERLOCK HOLMES. If that also stinks, I'm done with him.

Random!

Your Simpsons/Kurosawa joke for the day:

Marge: C'mon Homer, Japan will be fun! You liked 'Rashomon'.

Homer: That’s not how I remember it.

Incidentally, along the lines of "if you haven't seen it, why aren't you Netflixing this right now?!", RASHOMON falls under the category of if you haven't seen it, why aren't you Netflixing this right now?