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?

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS: REVIEW

Some movies hit the moment just right. Others stand outside of the moment, and just exist as good movies. This is one of the latter.

How good is INGLORIOUS BASTERDS? Hitchcock good. The Pillowman good. Scorcese good. Brian De Palma when he's sane good. Pick your genre. It's up there. This is all the more promising because it comes from Quentin Tarantino, who we knew was good, but I don't think even he knew he was this good. We're a long way from Reservoir Dogs

I don't want to give anything away, because if you haven't seen it, you deserve to walk as unaware as possible. The trailers you have seen are accurate while being completely misleading. As INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is, indeed, a story of Brad Pitt's 8 boys, much in the same way that it's also a story about a newly-made orphan's revenge, Hilter's boorishness, Goebbels's insecurity, a Nazi Officer unlike any you've seen before and the most menacing eating of pastries ever put on film. Yes it is all of that, and more importantly, it's fun.

A WWII movie that's fun, you say? Preposterous. Tasteless. How dare you not take something serious, seriously. Some have even written that the movie is troubling or, worse, evil, for "anything that makes Fascism unreal is wrong. " (Jonathan Rosenbaum- see below) Perhaps. Nazis are serious business. Just ask Mel Brooks.

But it's worth remarking that Shakespeare, Moliere and Gilbert and Sullivan got a lot more milegage out of seemingly-gentle parody than anything Strindberg or Ibsen ever wrote. The point being, you can make your serious art all you want about serious subjects, but to really kill the monsters of history, the best tactic is to deflate them. That doesn't mean you're not taking them seriously, it means you're serious about that cream pie you just slammed in their face.

That's Tarantino's method, anyway. He starts with a set up that is as dark as it is funny, scary as it is horrific, involving a silent game of chess played between two men talking what seems like minor details. Really, they're talking about human lives, and the fate of those lives will impact other lives. And with one decision made during this scene, a pinball is let loose that eventually ends up in a whole lotta people being dead. Not just here, but throughout the movie. And not in ways you expect.

Part of the strength of this scene, and many others, is that you KNOW you're watching a Tarantino movie. Any minute now, 88 ninjas will descend from nowhere and rape someone in the back closet while Kurt Russell drives by at 100mph. Why? Because that's the kind of stuff that happens in his movies. You're geared for anything. And a lot of the satisfaction comes from when things DON'T happen. This may sound boring; but one of the smarter things Hitchcock ever observed was the definition of suspense. If two men are talking with a bomb underneath their table, and the bomb goes off, that is action. If the bomb does not go off, it is suspense. I may have mangled the quote, but you get the idea.

Which is not to say that nothing happens in this movie, far from it, a lot of things do. It is generally true that when your traditional good looks hero walks into a room at about halfway through a movie, usually, he is walking out of it, otherwise the movie would be over. It is not true in this movie. Who would have thought that out of all of Tarantino's homages in this film- and he borrows from everywhere, from THE BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI to THE WIZARD OF OZ- his smartest move would be to take a page from the bible of DEEP BLUE SEA, of all things? You know what they say about homage. When you steal from another movie artfuly, it is homage. When you steal from another movie poorly, it is hackery.

But more than just playing with expectations, the movie soars on its performances. Not only from Brad Pitt- who is great as Lt. Aldo Raine - and Eli "HOSTEL" Roth- who is suprisingly good- but from the heroine and the villain. First, the heroine.


I've never seen Melanie Laurent before, and part of the advantage of not seeing someone perform is that you're not sure if they are actually performing. As the out-for-revenge Shosanna, she is so good that I wasn't sure if she was acting or if she just happened to be caught on camera while plotting the death of the entire Third Reich. Shosanna is a fictional avenger on scale with Medea, and Michael Corleone and the The Count of Monte Cristo.

The other key ingredient to the movie's success is the villain. You would think in a movie about killing Nazis, that villain would be Hitler. But you would be wrong: Hilter is the prize, the potential low hanging fruit who storms about like Baby Huey. Here, the real evil here is Col. Hans Landa, who is not only the embodiment of the darkness that lurks in the hearts of men (see Batman, The) but a genuniely hilarious and interesting character. He's the one in the beginning playing mental chess while drinking milk. Not only does he do bad things, not only does he eventually propose a deal worthy of the Devil, but he's smart too. Smart villains are almost always much more interesting foils, it's better to have to keep up with them than to have them try to keep up with us. (see Joker, The). I have never seen Christoph Waltz before, but after his performance as Col Hans Landa, I can't wait to see him again. Of all of his great moments, I think my favorite is when he asks what happened to the actresses's leg. When he gets his answer, he does what you would probably do. You'll see.

Some of the reviews I have read of this film (although the vast majority have been positive) are wise old men shaking their heads, wondering when Tarantino will grow up. Such a shame that he refuses to chose to trivialize important matters! Such a tragedy he cannot pick a constant genre or tone! How offensive that he refuses to stick to what actually happened instead of what could have!

History exists is in books and memories, and deserves at least one honest movie that gets it right. But here's the thing: WWII and all that happened therein has gotten that movie, time and time and time and time again. We know Nazis are evil. We know that the unthinkable happened, and could easily happen again, and maybe even is. We know that people deny the unthinkable with alarming ferocity, trying to rewrite history to suit their agendas. But this movie is not akin to "holocaust denial" (for this and more grouchy thoughts from a smart man that I cannot agree with, go to http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=16606 )

I say that while you can take on evil with a serious, straight portrayal, another way one way to take down monsters of history is to invent creatures of fiction who are or were powerful enough to take them down. (see America, Captain) I say that history would have been better with Shoshanna and Aldo Raine in existance, and on our side. I say that while Hans Landa is fictional, there were enough real life counterparts to mimic him that our need for heroes is greater than ever. I say that while Kill Bill was fun, Tarantino's choice to focus his fictional revenge on a real monster makes for one of the more powerful and energizing movies in a long time.

Life is too strange to tell every story about a dark time in the same solemn tone. Maybe it's a generational thing. I dunno. But I know that INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is a damn good movie.

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

P.S. There is one scene in this movie that does not work at all: not as exposition or parody. It features Mike Myers. It's not that he's bad, necessarily, it's that suddenly Dr. Evil is giving a briefing in a british accent. Odd.

RICHARD III: REVIEW

It's not supposed to be like this.

I, who, when not being a huge nerd, am a drama snob; should be telling you to go out and Netflix this gem of a forgotten film RIGHT NOW. That's at least what my memory was telling me would happen when I Netflixed Ian McKellan's RICHARD III. After all, I studied it in my Shakespeare on Film class, and had fond memories. I love Ian McKellan. I love Richard III, the play. I love the idea of re-setting in a post WWII quasi-facist Britan. I love Jim Broadbent. I love Robert Downey, Jr. I'm neutral-postive on Annette Benning. And a tank going through a wall is, believe it or not, a great way to start an adaptation of the play.

This is the part where I tell you to run out and Netflix it. This is that not actually happening, because aside from Sir Ian himself, this movie is a glorious concept poorly filmed, unevenly acted and questionably cut.

Oh, it all starts well enough. A tank goes through a wall, a crippled man in a gas mask shoots helpless prisoners and rips of his mask it's- gasp- Ian McKellan! We then saunter into a grand party for the new king, which handily introduces all the characters while showing Richard III to be part of the world but outside it. Then he starts the famous opening monologue- the one about a winter of being pissed off- and the movie pulls off a small masterstroke, by having him deliver the first half as a laudatory speech and the second half to the audience in a urinal. Nice.

This set-up proves to be a tough act to follow, as after the party the pace slows and one gets distracted from the action. I found myself on facebook instead of in the movie. This is strange, as the play begins to pile up the bodies almost immediately, which is a useful dramatic tool. But save for the murder of George (and even that suffers from cuts), most of what we get is a series of unfortunate events to people we don't care much about, and Richard III grinning all the way.

Sir Ian pulls his weight: he sneers, he lords over his underlings, he delivers asides to the camera and seems to be having the time of his life. The rest of the cast looks adrift. Annette Benning has convinced me of many things over the years, but she could not convince me here that she knew the meaning of her lines. Robert Downey Jr. is in the movie too briefly to make much of an impression (of all the parts they could have given him, they give him Rivers? Really?) Jim Broadbent hits very broad notes as Buckingham, and while Lady Anne is a difficult role, and Kristen Scott Thomas is more than up to the task of handling the language, the movie torpedoes her with some strange choices. After playing the "Seduction over the corpse" scene fairly straight, they decided to have her show up at a fancy dinner, smiling at Richard III's jokes and smirking at his foes. It's a compete 180 that's not followed up on later, and complicates her character for no reason. She also is a drug addict in this version.

Maybe the problem was me. I know many of these scenes well, and while I am no prude when it comes to trimming Shakespeare, what we're left with is a lot of flavorless murders. The strange request by Richard for strawberries before he kills Hastings? Gone. The pleading from George that almost changes the murderer's minds? Gone. The moment where Buckingham observes that it's all Saint's Day, before he is murdered? Gone. And perhaps most crucially, Queen Margaret's cackling rant that warns them all of the impending doom? Gone. This last one is the greatest sin, because they went to the trouble to cast the impossibly great Maggie Smith, and then forgot to give her anything to do.

But I suspect most of the problem lies with the director, Richard Loncraine, who may know how to direct Ian McKellen but has proven himself incapble of delivering a movie. (His post RICHARD III adventures include WIMBELDON and FIREWALL.) You get the a strong sense of what he tried to do, without actually getting the end result. This Britan does not feel real, it feels desgined and filmed. The actors in stylish costumes reciting Shakespeare look like actors in stylish costumes reciting Shakespeare; which is fine unless you want people to actually understand and give a damn about what's going on. Richard III is not a meek play or character, if ever there was an excuse to grab the camera and throttle it, it's this material. And yet it feels almost stately, like the Kenneth Braugnah Shakespeare comedies, but without the fun.

The last scenes involve a helter-skelter civil war between Richard and Richmond. It is a troubling sign that one cannot follow the action, or care much about the result. It is a worse sign when you compare the battle to the infinitely better and smaller documentary Looking for Richard, which cross cut Al Pacino as Richard fighting 3 extras with Al Pacino's producer bitching about production costs; and choose the documentary. That's right- for all of this movie's explosions, a documentary about the filming of a play had a more exciting conclusion.

The movie's design and costumes are fantastic. There are six or seven good moments/well delivered lines. If you watch the trailer, you can see all of these moments, and the costumes. Lord knows that's how they got me into the theater in high school, and got me excited for class in college. Hell, I watched the trailer before I rewatched the movie, to get excited again. But the trailer's the best part of the movie, if only because it conjurers up a promise that the movie never delivers.

In short, if you want to watch Ian McKellen gallivant about, by all means. Otherwise, this is a movie for no one. Purists will hate the changes and the performances, casual viewers will be bored and the material remains obtuse and hard to engage for the "oh god, not shakespeare" crowd. It may be small news to tell you that I Netflixed a movie not worth watching (I could tell you the same of INKHEART) but to tell you the same news about what I thought was a great Shakespeare adaptation is, as the bard would say, a bummer.

RATING: * * Stars (Out of 5)

P.S. I never thought I would say this about any role Jim Broadbent has played, but after seeing his interpretation of Buckingham up against Kevin Spacey in LOOKING FOR RICHARD, I prefer the non Jim Broadbent version.

P.P.S. Of all the additions they made to the script, the worst is Stanley's nightmare where he imagines Richard's face being replaced with that of a wild hog. However, it's interesting that of all the fantasy/sci fi/comic book movies Ian McKellan has been in, it's the shakespeare movie that has him wearing a latex face with gross fangs.


Doesn't that picture look awesome? Doesn't make you want to see this movie? Well, don't.