Dragnet (1987).

Review #2427: Dragnet (1987).

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Detective Sergeant Joe Friday), Tom Hanks (Detective Pep Streebek), Christopher Plummer (the Reverend Jonathan Whirley), Harry Morgan (Captain Bill Gannon), Alexandra Paul ("the Virgin" Connie Swail), Jack O'Halloran (Emil Muzz), Elizabeth Ashley (Commissioner Jane Kirkpatrick), and Dabney Coleman (Jerry Caesar) Directed by Tom Mankiewicz.

Review: 

Maybe you know what Dragnet is, but your dad or grandfather probably know it quite well in some way or form. Apparently, Webb was inspired by what he saw when filming his role in He Walked by Night (1948), specifically what he heard from technical consultant Marty Wynn involving the actual procedures and activities of police officers that he got Wynn to cooperate on what became one of the big procedurals of its time. In 1949, Dragnet was born on radio with the NBC radio network, as featuring Jack Webb and a handful of partners. Two years later went by before it went to television (now with Webb and Ben Alexander), running for eight years and also having a film version in 1954. And then of course there was the new thing for its time: a revival years later, with Webb now starring with Harry Morgan that ran from 1967 to 1970. There were plenty of routines to be had in those shows, whether that involved LSD or other types of rackets. Webb would continue to busy with making television shows involving authority such as Adam-12 (1968-75), O'Hara, U.S. Treasury (1971-72), and Emergency! (1972-77) before he died in 1982 at the age of 62.*  Apparently, Tom Mankiewicz was brought in to work on a re-write of a film script that had been done by Dan Aykroyd and Alan Zweibel (who had worked together on Saturday Night Live) involving Dragnet and was then asked to direct it himself, which was his directing debut, having famously done work as just a writer with Superman and an assortment of James Bond movies; he directed just one other movie with Delirious (1991)

I do remember, very vaguely, seeing my dad watch this movie on a VHS tape once, specifically the part where the name P.A.G.A.N is revealed (People Against Goodness and Normalcy, ha, get it). That was what, nearly 15 years ago, so I suppose it is better late than never to actually watch this movie. You get a buddy cop movie (complete with a tank and jet) that happens to have a very by-the-book person at the helm that is sometimes funny and altogether a bit stuffed at 106 minutes long. As a semi-spoof, it at least looks like it cared about the original material, although it definitely shows a bit too much willingness for the "let's put a pop song in it" idea. You can probably tell that Aykroyd had a fascination with Jack Webb in actually getting the jargon down with the calm and collected feel of someone who rolls with the punches. Of course, Aykroyd actually did work as a reserve officer with multiple police departments (no I'm not joking), so this isn't merely just a case of a long-winded bit, he just thought it would be an honor to do a Jack Webb homage, to a certain type of mixed result. According to Aykroyd, Hanks (who was cast in the film because Albert Brooks said no and Jim Belushi wasn't available) was not big on the final result of the film. Hanks (in the period between Splash [1984] and, well, Big [1989]) does fine here, maneuvering through the proceedings with a good dose of charm and you do eventually get a sense of connection between him and Aykroyd as hard (okay, maybe sometimes hardly) working cops on the beat as a team. Morgan might have been winding down in his seventies (this was his penultimate film appearance), but at least he looks happy to be around for a few scenes in experiencing some jargon said at him again. Plummer is calm enough to work as the wolf in sheep's clothing, for the most part. The rest is here and there, mainly because the movie comes up with a few softball ideas to corral the procedural (so a Playboy knockoff and a totally not evil Reverend to go with uniting them for a common goal) that probably came out of at least one too many re-writes. Sure, you can't make it all a sketch, but the movie does have most of its steam in the first half when trying to play setup rather than the inevitable sequences of action, for better or worse. I enjoyed it just enough to roll with its general pacing. As a whole, Dragnet (1987) is a fine little movie that at least doesn't come off as merely an overextended sketch idea and has a few moments worth watching. It definitely is hit-or-miss, but if you are looking for a bit of fun, you might find it here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*To tie this to movies a tiny bit, Webb was actually approached about playing Dean Wormer in Animal House (1979). Go figure, he turned it down.

Tomorrow: the horror season begins.

Nothing but Trouble (1991).

Review #2244: Nothing But Trouble.

Cast: 

Chevy Chase (Chris Thorne), Dan Aykroyd (Alvin "J.P" Valkenheiser / Bobo), John Candy (Dennis Valkenheiser / Eldona Valkenheiser), Demi Moore (Diane Lightson), Valri Bromfield (Miss Purdah), Taylor Negron (Fausto Squiriniszu), Bertila Damas (Renalda Squiriniszu), Raymond J. Barry (FBI Agent Mark), and Brian Doyle-Murray (FBI Agent Brian) Directed by Dan Aykroyd.

Review: 

"Well the movie I directed I wish had done better because I know it was a good serviceable comedy. It was called "Nothing But Trouble." It just got hit by the Gulf War and there was a Julia Roberts comedy and a Jodie Foster movie in the same marketplace and we were dead. But people watch it on DVD and they tell me they like it."

I'm sure you've had a weird experience on the road once. Dan Aykroyd apparently had one such experience in the late 1970s that involved him wrapped in a kangaroo court after a traffic mishap that saw him invited to tea. The impetus to make a horror comedy came at the suggestion of Robert K. Weiss when he went to a screening (with the Aykroyds) of Hellraiser and saw people laughing at the film. Peter Aykroyd wrote the story for the film while his older brother Dan wrote the screenplay. A variety of the ideas came from dreams Aykroyd was having to go along with the actual town of Centralia, Pennsylvania (a near ghost town due to a coal mine fire that has burned under the place since 1962). Aykroyd never actually wanted to direct the film, because he initially aimed to play both the Judge character and the lead character eventually played by Chase because the studio wanted Chase to star (Aykroyd then was tasked to play "Bobo" because nobody was big on playing an ugly twin). While the studio did not meddle during the actual shooting of the film (due to, of all things, being distracted by another troubled production in The Bonfire of the Vanities), they eventually meddled when it came to the final cut, which they felt was too much and thus cut it down to go for a PG-13 rating and push back the release from Christmas 1990 (the aforementioned Vanities film got the date) to 1991 while changing the title from "Valkenvania" to, well, "Nothing But Trouble". The movie was not liked by audiences or critics, and it is the only film that has been directed by Aykroyd.

Honestly, it isn't exactly that bad, and I fail to see exactly why people gave the movie guff for basically being a sillier rendition of a monster movie (Abbott and Costello isn't too bad a comparison) crossed with Motel Hell. Sure, it isn't as funny as it probably could have been and it sure seems obvious where things were cut down to size (complete with its Looney Tunes ending), but what the hell is so bad about goofy grotesque fun? If it was a film by an "auteur", would people have given credit as one that dared to show dreams on screen? Instead, it was thought of as gross and not funny when the grotesque eccentric nature is the whole point. Sure, one could say the cast turns out to be a mixed bag, depending on one's patience, particularly when it comes to the middling chemistry of Chase and Moore, but one could make the argument that they look accurately befuddled at the proceedings around them that play around with the idea of who one wants to be following as a lead. When one finally gets around to Aykroyd, you really can't take your eyes off him in his amusingly creepy nature that imposes plenty on its audience, complete with a moment where his nose looks a certain way while grinning. He plays one half of the mutant baby-creatures that likes to play cards that is actually kinda funny. I think one has to just imagine that Chase really is just playing a jerk who thinks he knows better than the others around him rather than calling it a lazy performance (don't worry, there were lazier ones). Candy is probably the second most committed to the bit, having some warm charm in one role and a silently funny role on the other side (yes, one can look pretty convincing in a certain type of costume if they have the right glance for it). It is the designs that come through in the sets and costumes that keep the film on the ride of sustainability that otherwise would've doomed other films to, well, having less interest in it in the "is it really that bad?' cult. There are too many doodads and weird things to mention (heh, goofy ugly twins) without just saying one should just see it for themselves in what they accomplished in macabre engagement. The 93 minute runtime just makes one want to see just what the hell was so weird that couldn't make it through for audiences to grit their teeth at. As a whole, it is a messy movie that deserved better, particularly with what ended up being on screen. Its creativity in the art of weirdness is one that should be celebrated when it comes to the grotesque more so than in comedy for a strange but worthwhile experience.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Now up, state your case this time with: Mommie Dearest.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.

Review #2195: Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.

Cast: 

Paul Rudd (Gary Grooberson), Carrie Coon (Callie Spengler), Finn Wolfhard (Trevor Spengler), Mckenna Grace (Phoebe Spengler), Kumail Nanjiani (Nadeem Razmaadi), Patton Oswalt (Dr. Hubert Wartzki), Celeste O'Connor (Lucky Domingo), Logan Kim (Podcast), Emily Alyn Lind (Melody), James Acaster (Dr. Lars Pinfield), Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), and William Atherton (Mayor Walter Peck) Directed by Gil Kenan.

Review: 

Admittedly, Ghostbusters (1984) was basically a perfect comedy movie that is hard to replicate when it comes to the successors that arose in its wake. The best thing to come out afterwards from this "franchise" probably depends on one's age, but it is pretty safe to say the 2009 video game was probably close to or, well, the best one of the lot, which now has five films (you remember: 1989, 2016 [don't know], 2021, and here), with the latter being enough of a hit to generate the idea of going further in busting (sure, this is the third of these films that like to brand themselves as "Ghost Corps", which I maintain is a silly name). I do wonder what folks care most about a film involving people that are probably a bit nutty enough to have to commit to fighting beings that play havoc with random things from time to time. The original 1989 sequel was light in the idea of strife when it comes to maintaining teamwork in the face of doubt while Afterlife presented a solid adventure of growing back the family that just happened to have ghosts in Oklahoma. Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman, who wrote the script for Afterlife, return to write the script for this film.

Oh hell, Frozen Empire was fine. Granted, there are plenty of caveats to go with that statement, but it takes a lot of wasted goodwill to make an intolerable sequel, particularly one watched in theaters, and this movie is useful enough as a ride to justify most of its surroundings. There are probably one too many people in this cast, that much is for certain. I think at a certain point "passing the torch" really should mean what it says, because it seems almost amusing to have enough busters to make up a baseball lineup, but since one is here for 115 minutes, one does aspire to not see any significant weak links among the groups (familiar, older familiar, new). This is pretty much true here, although it is clear that Grace shines the best among the group (of course with Aykroyd, we know his spirituality is right into it). It is the kind of curiosity that is charming in terms of the frustration that arises in not-quite-ready-for-adulthood (this case: bureaucracy). This results in a few interesting moments of connection beyond hunting when it comes to scenes spent with Lind (after a previous film of playing it close in quiet interaction on one side). Nanjiani seems to be having fun trying to play it off as a goof ripped from a cartoon (he cited The Real Ghostbusters animated series as an inspiration for the filmmakers with this film, so this may check out), which can be hit or miss from scene to scene. Well, it is nice to see Atherton again, who has managed to retain the certain kind of smarm that one would hope to enjoy in established character actors. It goes as such for the criminally underrated Hudson when it comes to neat charm in quasi-exposition dialogue (as opposed to Oswalt, who might as well have his role rendered by a PowerPoint presentation but with less snark). Murray and Potts may be shuffling in and out with brief attempts at dry cracks, but familiar comfort does suit some more than others. When it comes to the paranormal, I suppose sorcerers and astral projections is not the silliest bridge to cross when talking about fear-sucking ghosts that like ice. I'm fine with the threat presented here in the sense that being frozen or corralling fear is at least a semi-interesting idea seemingly cobbled from too many binges into paranormal things without becoming insulting. Oh, it is silly, but it is the kind of silly that I can at least throw my hands up rather than slap them down in derision. In general, Afterlife is a bit better when it comes to the overall jokes and the exploration of people working in tandem as a family. If you have had fine times with the previous Ghostbusters follow-ups since 1984 (forty years ago, so...), you will be fine with what is accomplished here for a stuffed ride that delivers exactly what one imagines it to be for shades of adventure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Review #2026: Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Cast: 

Opening sequence: Albert Brooks (the Driver), Dan Aykroyd (the Passenger), and Burgess Meredith (Narrator)

"Time Out": Vic Morrow (Bill Connor), Doug McGrath (Larry), and Charles Hallahan (Ray)

"Kick the Can": Scatman Crothers (Mr. Bloom), Bill Quinn (Leo Conroy), Martin Garner (Mr. Weinstein), Selma Diamond (Mrs. Weinstein), Helen Shaw (Mrs. Dempsey), and Murray Matheson (Mr. Agee)

"It's a Good Life": Kathleen Quinlan (Helen Foley), Jeremy Licht (Anthony), Kevin McCarthy (Uncle Walt), Patricia Barry (Mother), and William Schallert (Father)

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet": John Lithgow (John Valentine), Abbe Lane (Sr. Flight attendant), Donna Dixon (Jr. Flight attendant), John Dennis Johnston (Co-Pilot), and Larry Cedar (Gremlin)

Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000, and #1718 - The Stupids), 

Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, and #2000 - Duel), 

Joe Dante (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action, #096 - Gremlins, #097 - Small Soldiers, #1494 - Gremlins 2: The New Batch, #1744 - The Howling) 

and George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, #707 - Mad Max 2, #781 - Mad Max: Fury Road)

Review:

The Twilight Zone, originally broadcast on CBS in 1959, is generally considered one of the best television shows of its time, if not one of the best ever. There were 156 episodes of the anthology series, with a good majority of them (92!) written by series creator (and presenter) Rod Serling. He had come up with the idea for an anthology series that would use its "science-fiction setting" to have more freedom to write what he felt. Technically, the show was not meant to be scary, but it just happened to have plenty of twists within a mostly consistent show. Providing a list of what episodes are the best seems futile, but here is a list of episodes that would be neat for one to check out if they want to see just what the show could do in its format (most are a half-hour long, minus the hour-long fourth season): "One for the Angels", "Walking Distance", "A Quality of Mercy", "Printer's Devil", and "One More Pallbearer" (one could also go for Serling's reported favorites in "The Invaders" and "Time Enough at Last"). Rod Serling had an interest in doing a Twilight Zone film for quite some time prior to his death in 1975. Various cast members that had appeared in an original episode appear in the film: Burgess Meredith, Patricia Barry, Peter Brocco, Murray Matheson, Kevin McCarthy, Bill Mumy, and William Schallert. The movie was marked by tragedy in the making of the first segment of the film due to an accident involving a helicopter crash during filming on July 23, 1982. Two children, Myca Dinh Le, Renee Shin-Yi Chen were hired to do a scene at night (under the table) that involved pyrotechnics and a helicopter. This resulted in an accident that saw the death of Morrow and the two children. Various people, which included Landis, were tried and ultimately acquitted on manslaughter charges in a trial that spanned 1986 and 1987. Of course, the tragedy as a whole sparked a movement for fire safety regulations and entertainment industry requirements, complete with a safety committee made by the Directors Guild of America about safety bulletins and a phone hotline. The film was released 40 years ago in June of 1983, and it was a mild success with audiences. It would inspire CBS (who had the rights to the show because Serling had sold it to them) to go forward with a second rendition of the show in 1985. After its end in 1989, two further shows came and went in the following decades (2002-2003 and 2019-2020). 

The opening segment (roughly eight minutes) features Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd in a car conversation that eventually talks about the show within the movie and the question of if one wants to see something "really scary"? It is, uh, a strange way to start a movie, mostly because when I think of Twilight Zone, I don't think, man suddenly finds a surprise in a car. But it is with two folks that I like, so there's that. Burgess Meredith, who appeared in classic episodes of the show such as "Time Enough at Last", introduces each story in narration, which is a nice tribute to Serling's previous method, although they do use Serling's voice for the ending as a whole. John Landis directed this sequence alongside the first segment in "Time Out". The segment, lasting roughly 18 minutes, involves a racist and resentful man that goes to a bar after being passed over for promotion that finds himself wrapped up in the past, more specifically places such as Nazi-occupied France, a racist Klan rally, or in Vietnam. Evidently, the segment is a mishmash of the classic stories "Back There" (namely the time travel) and "A Quality of Mercy", with the writer being none other than Landis.  The original scripted idea obviously couldn't be completed due to the tragedy that occurred, which apparently was meant to have a resolution that would've tried to find redemption for the racist that saw him try to help two children out of a helicopter attack in a Vietnamese swamp. Instead, it ends on him going through a frenzy of terrifying events before being sent off by a train despite yelling out to his friends that he can see out of the slats. As such, the story is mild because it requires a bit more bite than what is required to either reach a payoff of redemption...or the opposite, and a segment that doesn't even last the time of an actual TV episode isn't going to cut it. As such, Morrow is essentially trapped in a segment with an unavoidable pall over the entire thing, but you can see the glimmer in one part of the diner scene. There he is, blithering around with a dirty mouth, and for a moment you can see him for what he is beyond the epithets: a loser who really thought the world owed him one because of what he looks and sounds like "as an American". Intended redemption or not, there obviously was something that could've been done here beyond what you know.

"Kick the Can" (lasting roughly 21 minutes) is based on the third season episode of the same name originally written by George Clayton Johnson. The segment screenplay was written by Johnson, Richard Matheson, and Melissa Mathison. It was directed by Steven Spielberg. Apparently, he had plans for an ambitious segment before the helicopter tragedy led to him curtailing plans...for a remake of an episode that I honestly can't remember watching to begin with beyond the phrase "old people get young". It has been rumored that Spielberg, under contract but having lost the heart for the project due to the tragedy, made only a half-hearted effort here. All of this is meant to subside the actual thoughts of the story about "the day we stop playing is the day we start getting old", which I vaguely remember seeing in my neighborhood park when I was a kid. If the Landis segment could be thought of as perhaps a bit too short, the Spielberg segment can be best described as half-brained and half-effective. I can't tell what is more annoying, its cloying sense of "cheer" for such an average effort, or the very rumor of Spielberg half-assing a story just to get out of a dilemma. Crothers actually does provide a decent performance here, pulling some of the mysterious requirements necessary to make a story telegraphed to us in every step of the way not nearly as painful as it could be, and Quinn is at least a quality foil the basic arguments made involving the inevitability of age. By the time the segment gets to the ultimate decision made, the lesson put there is at least one that isn't sapped of hokum...and then of course Crothers does a fourth wall bit before leaving. As a whole, it's just an okay segment, one that makes you wonder if being the "light segment" of the film is really a compliment.

"It's a Good Life" (roughly 27 minutes long) is loosely based off the third season episode of the same name (as written by Serling that was based on a short story by Jerome Bixby). Matheson wrote the screenplay for this segment (which Serling had discussed prior to his death as writing a draft to make into a film), with Joe Dante serving as director. The story involves a lady schoolteacher finding the company of a young boy at a rural diner when she helps him after he is accosted only to then accidently back her car into his bike. She gives him a ride home and meets the rest of his family, who all seem nice. Heck, I like Kevin McCarthy, what could go wrong with his character presence? Despite having quite a hill to climb in trying to remake one of the most famous Zone episodes, Dante has provided something special here: an off-beat and weird segment that seems to take you on a trip of not just sight and sound but of mind. It is a delightful and deranged segment, headlined by a useful cast. I of course dig the presences around the supporting folks like McCarthy, ever the panicky one in trying to keep appearances as essentially the elder statesmen of character presences here, made clear when he tries to figure just how a magic trick with an imaginative boy is going to go. Quinlan and Lichy make quite an effective pairing in the realm of dealing with such a funhouse of creativity that invites a tragic quality not present in the earlier adaptation (of course, since this adaptation uses an eight-year-old rather than a six-year-old, why not?), which seems like a suitable twist. It's a neat story as a whole.

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (22 minutes) is a remake of the story of the same name (based on the short story by Richard Matheson, who also wrote the screenplay for this segment) that had premiered in the fifth season of the show, which I'm sure you remember had William Shatner as star. George Miller serves as director here. The key change is to the circumstances of the man in the predicament of seeing a gremlin on the plane he is flying in: the TV episode had him travel with his wife after just spending time in a sanitarium while the film features a man with a fear of flying traveling alone. The segment is all about the tension that comes with what you know of the person observing a nightmare right in front of their eyes that obviously could be just our nightmare too: what if you saw something that no one could see that could lead to your death? The gremlin costume is the biggest evident difference in adaptation, mainly because it actually looks quite spooky in the moments it is seen in the dark rainy night, which only add to the fear portrayed excellently by Lithgow. This segment is probably the one that hews closest to the original spirit of the TV episode, which either makes it the best segment of the film or a pretty close second and one can't go wrong there. The movie begins and ends with the same man asking if one wants to see something really scary. Friends of anthologies with varying quality such as O. Henry's Full House (1952) or Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965) will be just fine with this movie, one that will have enough peaks and lows to make the 101-minute runtime seem useful to perhaps step further into the realm of the Twilight Zone and see just how fun anthology can be in the right hands.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Campaign.

Review #2021: The Campaign.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Representative Cam Brady), Zach Galifianakis (Marty Huggins), Jason Sudeikis (Mitch Wilson), Dylan McDermott (Tim Wattley), Katherine LaNasa (Rose Brady), Sarah Baker (Mitzi Huggins), John Lithgow (Glenn Motch), Dan Aykroyd (Wade Motch), and Brian Cox (Raymond Huggins) Directed by Jay Roach (#133 - Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, #134 - Austin Powers in Goldmember, #490 - Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery)

Review: 

I had considered watching the film a couple of years ago, because the 2010s certainly were a time for some odd-duck political movies and now the movie is over a decade old and maybe merited curiosity for what reputation one might see from a film that was moderately successful upon release. It was the eighth feature film directed by Jay Roach, who first started out working in production for music videos after film school at USC. His first film was Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1999), the first of a string of comedy films that were pretty successful. Of course, he did do a few drama films in between the comedies, most notably with two HBO productions with Recount (2008) and Game Change (2012), which detailed a key moment in the 2000 and 2008 U.S. presidential election, respectively. The screenplay was done by Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell, who also did the story with Adam McKay (like Henchy and Ferrell, McKay was a founder of the comedy website Funny or Die). I suppose it is a sign of the times if a comedy film like this ends up being made for $95 million.

I wish I liked the movie better. I don't even think it reflects the time we live in when it comes to a supposed increase in the insanity of the political circus, because the movie is not nearly clever enough to justify only being 85 minutes. If you want to be a neat and tidy satire, one should probably save it for television rather than make a film that is mild in crude effectiveness. I don't want this to sound like a wish for better presences at the lead, because Ferrell and Galifianakis do generally make for amusing moments, but could you just imagine a more serious actor trying to play things off such as their opponent having a beard just like a terrorist group? (Incidentally, John Goodman makes a cameo appearance late in the film, and it only made me sad). It probably doesn't help that the film's cameo appearances of contemporary public figures (which also happened with films such as The Candidate (1972)) only helps to remind me to avoid the brain rot of cable TV without really laughing. At least one can credit the fact that the two leads are meant to play folks trying to win in such pathetic ways that can only mean one can laugh at them without too much trouble, although Ferrell probably proves better. Both are basically playing a "bit", but one isn't seemingly playing it with a higher pitch and "quirky" habits, so there is that. Ferrell just ends up doing better in pathetic ridiculousness, a perfect career politician stooge. Coincidentally, Galifianakis had an uncle who was a U.S. Representative in North Carolina. He is fine in the film, getting some of the schtick down in terms of demonstrating how it feels when one is thrust into a world of mudslingers. The best presence in the movie besides the main two is somehow McDermott, who makes for an amusing heavy that looms around the foreground more often than Aykroyd and Lithgow, who play their roles with shockingly little hammy qualities that I kind of thought would come from playing the not-Koch brothers. The rest of the cast are okay in the background of political lunacy, whether that involves LaNasa and Baker being adequate reactionary presences to the on-screen duel of idiots or a worthy straight man to the withering sense of dignity in Sudeikis. The film wants to have little moments of crudeness (such as say, mouthy voicemails or slo-mo punching of babies and dogs) but not go too far with hammy-ness, and that mostly means the movie ebbs and flows through average middle ground, right down to its ending that is okay. It probably would work fine as an educational tool when trying to understand just how far one can go if they ride a message of "America, Jesus, freedom" with a little bit of showmanship (and perhaps a certain type of funder). At the end of the day, it is mildly amusing, one that for better or worse could inspire one to look further into how much one can mine in the realm of satire or with politics, if one cares for that sort of thing. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Trading Places.

Redux #328: Trading Places.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Louis Winthorpe III), Eddie Murphy (Billy Ray Valentine), Ralph Bellamy (Randolph Duke), Don Ameche (Mortimer Duke), Denholm Elliott (Coleman), Jamie Lee Curtis (Ophelia), Kristin Holby (Penelope Witherspoon), Paul Gleason (Clarence Beeks), Robert Curtis Brown (Todd), Alfred Drake (Securities Exchange manager), and Jim Belushi (Harvey) Directed by John Landis.

Review: 

From my review on January 1, 2013: 

What else to start the new year of 2013 but with a film review (I hear one small whisper of yay and more crickets.), and how about an 80's flick (Gee, I haven't done 63 times before. Oh wait...) to start off the new year. (Fun fact: This is my first review on New Year's Day. I must either have been lazy the last two years or I just didn't care. I still think I'm both options.) So how is this film? It's pretty good. This is Aykroyd and Murphy at their best, always seeming to change from serious one minute to comedic in another. The supporting cast is good, and even the one bit characters have a funny line. It has a serious and comedic feel to it, always tiptoeing the lines flawlessly, and having fun. Fun stuff after almost 30 years.

"It took me a long time just to understand the con, what was going on. It's just so funny, it's so long ago now, the chicanery is so much more arcane now. At least in ‘Trading Places,’ at the end of the day, there was the commodity." - John Landis

Admittedly, having young memories of watching a film like this is probably a weird thing to admit when you first watched this movie over twelve years ago when you were barely in the middle of being a teenager. But this was the first John Landis film that I ever watched, which actually was released 40 years ago today. As mentioned before, his viewing of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) inspired him to become a director, and he would grow up to work a variety of film jobs that ranged from mail boy to production assistant. He made his first feature film with Schlock (1973). The next couple of comedy films that he found his way to directing went better, and I'm sure you are already familiar with Animal House (1978) and The Blues Brothers (1980). At any rate, he came across a script treatment labeled "Black and White" by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod (writers of Cheaper to Keep Her (1981), a flop) that was being sold around at Paramount Pictures. Harris had been inspired to make a script based on his experiences with two wealthy but frugal brothers that he often played tennis with that liked to bicker about everything. He approached his writing partner in Weingrod about it with the presentation of two brothers bickering over nature vs. nurture, and research in the commodities market helped shape the film in setting while not making it the whole film. Landis saw the script as one that honed familiar to films in the 1930s such as screwball comedies or ones directed by Frank Capra that dealt with societal issues with distinctly amusing and strong characters (of course with the 1980s, the changes now involve a bit more swearing and nudity, which I imagine irritated the still-living and bitter Capra). This was the seventh feature film directed by Landis, who also served as director for Twilight Zone: The Movie in 1983. Landis worked again with Murphy with Coming to America (1988) and Aykroyd with Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). Harris and Weingrod would go on to do a handful of screenplays together, which resulted in films such as Brewster's Millions (1985), Twins (1988), and Space Jam (1996).

If you think about it, there really is something special about the fact that five of the main six actors in this film (Murphy, Aykroyd, Ameche, Curtis, and Elliott) would go on to receive Academy Award nominations after the release of this film (the only one who did not was Bellamy, who already had been nominated - in 1937!). It always is interesting to see what the more interesting challenge is, comedians trying to play drama or folks trying to play comedy, but I imagine what is more challenging is to make a movie about finances that actually turns out funny. It is safe to say that Landis and company made a worthy comedy with a strong cast and entertaining direction and script that makes it an enduring screwy kind of comedy. Debate all you want over what Landis film ended up being better in terms of laughs, but it is safe to say that when in the right element, it perhaps never worked out any better in distinguished intrigue than this film. The American Dream may involve a bit too much love of money, but with this film, well, why the hell not? Next, you'll be asking if it is a dated feature when not seeing it for yourself for a film that involves folks playing nationality dress-up. Landis also saw inspiration in the basic dynamic within Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper (which involved two look-alike kids born on the same day to swap clothes). 

The original actors in mind for certain roles involved Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor for the main two roles, Ray Milland for the elderly brother role opposite Bellamy, and either John Gielgud or Ronnie Barker for the role later played by Elliott. Oh, and Curtis wasn't even a preference of the studio, because they had her pegged as a "scream queen". Ameche hadn't even acted in a film since Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came (1970) because apparently nobody had approached him about one (which meant that he had spent his time doing roles on stage and TV). And yet each prove quite amazing in their roles in terms of contribution of laughter that makes any scene count in conviction that really does outline how much it matters to have money in the rat race (regardless of race or class). Aykroyd in particular does a worthy job at playing the role to haughty brilliance that can be both mark and heel in consistent watchability, even when playing a miserable man watching past parties in the driving rain. Murphy, fresh off the heels of 48 Hrs. (1982), is enjoyable with spry timing (he ad-libbed a good deal of his own lines) that utilizes his talents for more than just silly humor, in part because he makes a worthy distinct image of Aykroyd when it comes to adapting to the situation around him (whether involving money or, well, you know). Oh sure, he is a scene-stealer much like his prior film appearance, but that is part of the fun. While it might have been interesting to see a pairing of Pryor and Wilder after the success of stuff such as Silver Streak, it is evident that Aykrord and Murphy were more than ready to deliver the screwball requirements. Apparently, Landis had an interesting time casting the role eventually played by Curtis because he felt it was the one character in the script that he had a problem with (because a "hooker with a heart of gold" seemed a bit on the fantasy side). I think we can say Curtis made the role count more than anyone else would have done, if only because her knowing charm and talent clearly shines through. The power of human nature is one thing, having the means to do things their way is another, basically.

The more established names are just as efficient, because Bellamy and Ameche make the ideal adversaries that you would believe would have both the attitude and insanity required to ruin a person's life over a bet to settle the pettiest of all arguments (look nature vs. nurture could make a good argument for a film, but most don't go around betting money on it). Ameche in particularly seems to relish the chance for a chance at amplified snobbery, and it is evident to see how he made an on-screen comeback with this in his credit. Bellamy is no slouch of course, because he is just as crafty in timing, and the last scene they share involving them at their new point of lowness is a worthy punchline that they each contribute well to. Elliott plays a role of such clear distinction (a butler) without coming off as just another cliche to pass off, and that I think comes from his resonance in caring about what he is doing on the screen on instinct (incidentally, he was known in previous films in a over three-decade film career as a scene-stealer).. Gleason plays a character with loose inspiration from G. Gordon Liddy and he proves quite well in scuzziness. The 116 minutes roll off pretty effectively, balancing its time with its main group to where the eventual leadup to the climax comes off without any hitches that has the task of making commodities something to watch and follow with chuckles. If you have to have folks talk about how the endgame at the market (filmed at the New York Mercantile Exchange with a good deal of actual traders participating) and are then referenced in Congressional testimony about commodities, clearly, you have done something right. It is safe to say that watching the film now has only strengthened my thoughts on it being a pretty effective film from its time that shows Landis and company at their strengths for worthy enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

It really is 40 years to the day since this film was released, so what better way to say a movie is really good than to do a re-review? There will be a handful more redux reviews to come in the following months, so I hope you enjoy them.

Sneakers (1992).

Review #1886: Sneakers.

Cast: 

Robert Redford (Martin Bishop / Martin Brice), Ben Kingsley (Cosmo), Sidney Poitier (Donald Crease), David Strathairn (Irwin 'Whistler' Emery), Dan Aykroyd (Darren 'Mother' Roskow), River Phoenix (Carl Arbogast), Mary McDonnell (Liz Ogilvy), Stephen Tobolowsky (Werner Brandes), Timothy Busfield (Dick Gordon), Eddie Jones (Buddy Wallace), George Hearn (Gregor "Greg" Ivanovich), Donal Logue (Dr. Gunter Janek), Lee Garlington (Dr. Elena Rhyzkov), and James Earl Jones (NSA Agent Bernard Abbott) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson (#488 - Field of Dreams)

Review: 

Ensemble movies need their appreciation too, if you think about it. Do you remember WarGames (1983)? In the process of writing the script for that film, Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes discovered the existence of "sneakers", which refers to hackers that well, sneak into a computer system somewhere (in this case, the hackers here are hired by banks to break in and test the security system). A number of drafts eventually attracted the attention of Phil Alden Robinson, and he ended up spending nine years trying to get the film going. Getting the attention of Robert Redford (cast in a role originally intended with a star in their mid-40s as written by people in their 40s) helped the process and eventually led to a film with a cadre of actors that went from veteran stars to younger names such as River Phoenix (this was the penultimate movie released before his death the following year) while squeezing James Earl Jones in for one scene. Lasker and Parkes also produced the film, which was their fourth venture together (one of them was Awakenings (1990)). Clearly, the movie is really more of a take on the caper movies of yesteryear with its distinct characters in its ensemble, although the message about a world run by "little ones and zeroes" probably still seems quite true after three decades. You probably remember Robinson as the director of Field of Dreams (1989), his second effort; Sneakers is his third feature effort, and his next feature film ended up being Freedom Song eight years later.

Admittedly, it is a nice little movie when it comes to seeing familiar faces in an attempt at a techno-thriller/heist movie. Oh sure, it is a movie that does extoll a little bit about the quirks of a new age where having control of the information might be more important than having the fastest gun. Sneakers does so with a grasp of a number of cliches you have probably seen in countless heist movies with how you can describe the supporting characters in two-word phrases or how the climax is operated (besides the literal slow-motion sequence), right down to needing to acquire a box. In that sense, it can either prove as a comfort movie with plenty of enjoyment from an age like the 1990s or just an average ensemble, and I think it works out more often than not to make a quiet winner. Redford does well with what is needed in general charm, a uniter of misfits with what you've seen a few times from him (perhaps playing a bit of The Sting but without looking like a copy). Poitier, in his penultimate appearance in a feature film, still has the knack for steely timing to contrast the semi-whimsical others, mostly against Aykroyd (amusingly, when approached for the film, he actually was more interested in playing the Cosmo role before being told that Kingsley was signed for it). Kingsley doesn't have as much to really do as the adversary, but in a movie with just a fraction of action and more about the general chase, this works out okay in general familiarity (better him than a ham or a nonentity, perhaps). Strathairn lends a few chuckles to go along with a wiry Phoenix that make the most of those little moments to shuffle the plot. McDonnell makes a quality deadpan middleperson, one who does share a few interesting moments with Redford alongside some chuckles with Tobolowsky, who seems to be having a ball with his moments on screen. 126 minutes is admittedly a big ask for thrillers to enjoy, but I think it does pull enough out of the bag of enjoyment to work at the expectation required from its cast and crew. It's a movie about a couple of scraps who just want to untangle themselves from a weirdo conspiracy involving uncertainties that is dealt with in wry patience that makes a solid little three-decade gem. If fun-loving ensembles trying to play caper is up your alley, go right ahead with this one, where the game of concerns of privacy still holds true now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Grosse Pointe Blank.

Review #1859: Grosse Pointe Blank.

Cast: 

John Cusack (Martin Q. Blank), Minnie Driver (Debi Newberry), Alan Arkin (Dr. Oatman), Dan Aykroyd (Grocer), Joan Cusack (Marcella), Jeremy Piven (Paul Spericki), Hank Azaria (CIA Agent Steven Lardner), Barbara Harris (Mary Blank), Mitchell Ryan (Mr. Bart Newberry), K. Todd Freeman (CIA Agent Kenneth McCullers), Michael Cudlitz (Bob Destepello), and Benny Urquidez (Felix La Poubelle) Directed by George Armitage.

Review: 

Yes, this was a movie script that was first written by a man who received an invitation to their 10th high school reunion. Michigan native Tom Jankiewicz worked as both an advertising copywriter, a substitute teacher and cashier when he was developing a script that would become this movie, which he started in 1991, which had a variety of characters that were based on people he had known (no, not the lead character). The script, when finally picked up for production, would feature re-writes that saw three people credited alongside Jankiewicz in the final version: John Cusack, Steve Pink, and D.V. DeVincentis. In the end, this was the only feature script that Jankiewicz would see made into a film, although he did serve as a script doctor on a handful of scripts while working primarily as an advertising copywriter and news-writer. In 2013, while participating in a question-and-answer session with college students about the movie, he collapsed and died; he was 49. Now, a film does need a solid director, which is where George Armitage comes into the picture, since Cusack sent him a copy of the script to see if he was interested. Born in Hartford with a move to California as a teenager, he started the road to filmmaking as a film fanatic who happened to study political science and economics at UCLA before being offered a mail room job at 20th Century Fox. He would do work for the studio on television while writing his first scripts in the mail room, most notably with Peyton Place. It was Roger Corman, who was there at the studio to make The St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967), that helped inspire Armitage on his way to become a filmmaker, particularly his style of letting the actors improvise while getting his day in of shooting; he would write Gas-s-s-s (1970) for Corman (while also serving as an associate producer), and he was impressed enough to have Armitage direct his first film with Private Duty Nurses (1971). Armitage, when presented the script by the four writers, found himself having to guide them to cut down the script in pre-production in order to get it right for shooting (in a sense, he was doing un-credited script work, although he did not want to deal with the Writers Guild and their way of handling credits). It was shot three ways: the written version, a mildly understated version, and an over-the-top version, with the latter being generally utilized to go alongside actor improvisation. This was the fifth feature he directed in his career.

It's funny how you can make a movie about a morally flexible assassin trying to not satisfy their urge and end up having to do so anyway for a solid and clever movie, one that manages to get the finer points of what it really means to try and go home again. It is a coherent black comedy that rewards its viewer with solid characterization in the art of detachment and wry behavior that happens to also have a soundtrack by a member of the Clash. The strength comes from Cusack, wrapped in curiosity and well-placed timing in a character role that requires someone who can eke out something worthwhile in a mess of a character that isn't simply just a calm and collected mercenary. It all comes with the eyes of watching someone who has seen the other side of life and wants to come back, with a little bit of shooting on the side. Driver makes up the other part of the captivating chemistry that comes with the movie in passionate cynicism that has tried to re-invent themselves again and again only to find frustration and hesitancy, complete with sharing a kiss with Cusack from the get-go only to throw a mic on him to do on-the-air blasting in ten years of irritation. Of course, the other members of the cast lend a hand in curious charm, whether that involves Cusack and Cusack sharing brief scenes together or on the phone that matches stoic and chipper attitudes. Arkin makes a reluctant pairing with Cusack that results in a few good moments in the art of attempted conventional therapy. Aykroyd is enjoyably deranged here, making for a quality (union man) ham that makes a quality contrast to Cusack without overstepping him. The setup to get to the climax might be a bit convenient, but one could also find a variety of situations to be a series of convivences and coincidences, which it is really a dandy way of saying that some things are just fun enough to go with things. The 107 minute run-time makes for a pleasant breeze, one that carries its time back home with memories and long-gone people with select moments of action, most notably with a locker-room fight that is executed effectively. As a whole, Armitage and company cultivated a movie with plenty of lasting appeal that has not diminished in the 25 years that have followed the release of this film, one with capable wit and timing from its characters that make it a lingering classic worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Ghostbusters II.

Redux #031: Ghostbusters II.

Cast: 

Bill Murray (Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler), Rick Moranis (Louis Tully), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Peter MacNicol (Janosz Poha), Kurt Fuller (Jack Hardemeyer), David Margulies (Mayor Lenny Clotch), Harris Yulin (Judge Stephen Wexler), with Wilhelm von Homburg (Vigo the Carpathian [voiced by Max von Sydow]), and Janet Margolin (the Prosecutor) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters)

Review: 

"I’m really proud of the second movie — I just saw it again and I really liked it. It didn’t get particularly good reviews. It was successful, financially, but less successful than the first one. I pushed it into a much more personal story."

Look, the original Ghostbusters (1984) made oodles of money. Obviously, there was a movement to make a second movie, but timing really is everything when it comes to movies. You had to make a movie that Reitman, Ramis, Aykroyd, and Murray all wanted to do, since they were reluctant to do a second movie to begin with, although Columbia Pictures was pretty much on board. Murray had not acted in a movie for a couple years (in a starring role anyway) after the release of the movie, since he believed that the success of Ghostbusters would forever be his biggest accomplishment. Aykroyd and Ramis return to do the script, although it was the former who wrote the first draft, as was the case with the original. Aykroyd apparently wrote his initial script involving a kidnapping to Scotland with fairy rings and underground civilizations (even he would admit that it was really too far out), but the part about things happening underground was retained. It was Ramis that contributed to the idea of negative human emotions having consequences (i.e. mood slime) alongside an idea he had once had for a horror story involving an infant who suddenly woke up with adult agility and focus. While the movie took five years to finally come out, Ghostbusters did find its way onto television first with The Real Ghostbusters, which ran from 1986 to 1991 (which is why one sees a bit more Slimer, since that character was apparently a big thing on that show). Naturally, there were re-shoots. Reitman noticed when watching the test version that the last 25 minutes apparently seemed like "a horrible death". Test audiences thought that the associated elements of the slime alongside Vigo the Carpathian weren't really connected or that the conflict was, well, a conflict hard enough for the Ghostbusters. Reshoots were done to try and strengthen the climax alongside cutting certain sequences. These added scenes include: a ghost train scene that goes through Winston, a scene with severed heads, and a fire that nearly takes down two of the Ghostbusters after they try to develop photographs of Vigo. The movie was released on June 16, 1989, to moderate but not spectacular audience results; Aykroyd tried to make a script for a third movie (one idea sent them to a hellish version of Manhattan), but Murray was not particularly interested, and multiple scripts came and went before plans to just do a reboot came in 2016.

 

I'll be honest, I have only seen the movie three times (once in 2011, the other one in 2019, and today). There just has to be a reason beyond just saying "it's just not as good as the original" for this. I can't say that the movie has exactly warmed further in my heart when it comes to looking at a movie that was released on June 16, 1989 (Reitman wanted to release it on the 23rd but decided to ask for the week beforehand because a certain movie was being released that same day). You may remember that the original 1984 film was a capable comedy that just happened to have good effects and a solid cast that (pardon the cliche) had heart to its proceedings with a well-developed story. Now, one has a movie that thinks its first best conceit it to throw the Ghostbusters right in the dump and build themselves up again, especially considering the whole "we saved your sorry asses from Gozer and you just decided to sue us like a bunch of losers" that sticks in my mind. Hell, I would have gladly accepted a plot-line that sees the other looming threat to a business besides authorities: competition. Hell, forget "restraining orders" for two seconds, who wouldn't want to try and improve what had been done? But nah, let's just take the skeleton of the original and take out a few parts to reincorporate at will, right down to a scene midway through the movie that takes the jail sequence from the first one and just replaces it with a mental institution. Dennis Muren was tasked to supervise the special effects as Reitman was not particularly happy with the work of Richard Edlund's Boss Film Studios for the first film. It didn't help make the process of doing Vigo faster, since it took them months to find a design likable enough to shoot. The effects do take a bit more of the show, for better or worse. On the one hand, the 108 minutes do pass pretty well in building interest for the aspects of slime and Vigo in the slightest of creeping terror. I did roll my eyes a tad less during the Statue of Liberty sequence and I did at least think the resolution with the crowd helped contrast the fact that one has to see a floating head for the final final shot of Vigo before he hits the dust. On the other hand, it is clearly not as funny as the original in general lines because of the fact that the filmmakers wanted to soften the image of their title characters to seemingly match the cartoon series, which results in a sitcom hodgepodge that a cynic would say has "castrated" the characters; I'm not saying, "screw you, kids", I just think it is a little silly to try and balance the needs of a movie and an animated series designed for kids when just making a balanced movie is a bit less convoluted. True, Murray is still the undoubtable highlight of the movie, one that has some of the same wit and spontaneity from before, even if he finds himself paired with Weaver (and a baby, ha ha ha) just as much as with the main group (the TV show scene is probably the highlight). Weaver does fine with the material provided in warm timing. Ramis is still the same wry guy from before, which goes with the energetic Aykroyd, which generally works out for a few chuckles and exposition that varies in engagement. Hudson, the sentimental favorite in audience surrogates and underrated presences has probably the same number of things to do as compared to from before (marginal), but he carries well among the scenes he usually is part of with Ramis/Aykroyd (this is one of those movies where you only see all four of a group for select moments until the end). I did appreciate MacNicol more than I had remembered, since he plays a stooge worthy of all the chuckles in offbeat quality that makes an interesting pairing with Weaver or for the climax. It should be noted that Von Homburg (a German boxer-turned-actor with a split lip) didn't know his voice was dubbed by von Sydow (who did his stuff in a day) until the premiere of the movie - at least he looks the part in off-putting terror, and von Sydow provides the right voice for it. Fuller may be playing an imitation of William Atherton from the first movie, but he at least makes a go of it in smarmy attribution to pair against the beleaguered and sorely lacking Marguiles (of course, Yulin gets to ham up a judge for a time, so all's even). As a whole, it comes together as a weird prediction of future movie sequels/reboots of the current age that take certain aspects from the original to include references that may or may not do anything particularly new with things (kind of like Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in how each are average).

Reitman blamed the movie not being as successful on the climate of films released around the time of June 1989...such as Batman (1989), released one week after this movie; Reitman described his movie as a "friendly, more personal, sort of character-based Ghostbusters" as one that seemed like a disappointment to audiences toned to something different; of course, his movie features people being so negative that they turn New York City into a cesspool of slime along with a Rasputin pastiche getting a guy to kidnap a baby to get out of a painting and possibly become a great terror. 1989 was an interesting year for sequels: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Karate Kid Part III, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Lethal Weapon 2, Back to the Future Part II, you get the idea. As a whole, the movie is fairly average in all the ways you never would have seen coming five years ago from a movie as beloved as the original was, one is carried heavily by effects and a little bit of cast magic that proves it is hard to capture the best essence of moviemaking twice. It is average and a disappointment, but it is far from being a complete waste not worth watching at least once, which means that Reitman and company did at least succeed somewhere down the line.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Ghostbusters (1984).

Redux Review #026: Ghostbusters.

Cast:
Bill Murray (Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler), Rick Moranis (Louis Tully), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), William Atherton (Walter Peck), David Margulies (Mayor Lenny Clotch), and Slavitza Jovan (Gozer) [Paddi Edwards as the voice of Gozer] Produced and Directed by Ivan Reitman.

Background:
Review #26, December 28, 2010. Originally, I described it as "this film is a load of fun, pure and simple", while giving it a 10 out of 10 stars. The original review was less than 100 words, so I figure I owe you readers at least some statements about the movie more substantial than the old review.

Review:

"By watching Ghostbusters, there's a sense that you can control this, that you can mitigate it somehow and it doesn't have to be that frightening. It became this movie that parents liked to bring their kids to—they could appreciate it on different levels but still watch it together."

The summer of 1984 was a beautiful time, and Ghostbusters ended up being one of the biggest hits of its time when it was released on June 8, 1984, serving as the second-highest grossing movie of the year behind Beverly Hills Cop. The development of the film from its initial idea to the final result is fascinating to consider. Dan Aykroyd had a long fascination with the supernatural due to his family upbringing that spanned three generations, complete with his father writing a book detailing the history of ghosts. At any rate, Aykroyd had become notable for his writing/feature role on the first four seasons of Saturday Night Live alongside The Blues Brothers (1980), and it was around the 1980s that he had developed a script that he wanted to make into a movie with his good friend John Belushi that had them travelling through time and space fighting ghosts, but Belushi died in 1982. At any rate, Aykroyd wanted to make a movie reminiscent of the ghost movies of the 1930s and 1940s (such as The Ghost Breakers), and he approached Bill Murray (also a SNL alum) to join in with his (half-finished) script and then approached Ivan Reitman, known for Meatballs (1979) and Stripes (1981) to direct. Reitman saw the potential in a sprawling script on levels that would have required a substantially higher budget by 1984 standards (incidentally, the Marshmallow Man was included in the script), and he talked with Aykroyd about grounding the plot down in a way that made the business akin to like pest control rather than an intergalactic ghost police, with Harold Ramis (writer of Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes) being asked to co-write the script; by the time the movie was finished, it had been done on a budget of $25-30 million shot in the span of a year, complete with the help of Richard Edlund and his effects team with Boss Film Studios had to do a wide array of effects from practical to puppets in a span of ten months (it also did work on 2010: The Year We Make Contact at the same time), and some effects shots were done in one take. 

It is the PG-rated comedy that generations grew up with and cherish, what more can really be said? A bit, really. What is it about Ghostbusters that works so easily and so effectively? Is it the quick wit? Is it the way the effects and comedy mesh without overriding each other? Is it the performances? The simple answer is all of the above and more. It is obvious to note the chemistry between Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis, who exchange lines and wit together that permeate into numerous memorable scenes, with lines that are effective and still memorable even after over three decades since its release; neither actor intrudes on each other, with their characters being easily distinctive. Sure, there are other versions of these characters (the cynic, the heart, the brains, the surrogate) in other movies, but nothing makes it work so neatly and so fruitfully as this one. Stating one's favorite scenes or lines could be a marathon with films like this, but the important thing to remember is that the timing and execution is exquisite, one with offbeat charm that keeps interest high without selling anyone short or riding a joke too long in a 105-minute run-time. It goes without saying that this is Reitman's best effort as a director, showing his effectiveness in arranging actors and spectacle in a New York love-letter, and it might be a top-3 highlight for each of its main castmates, top to bottom. Murray is the deadpan highlight, one who glides through the movie with wise-ass charm that he had honed with films like Meatballs, but he does it here with no sense of repetition. Aykroyd had the knack for writing amusing situations in his days back at SNL, and he continues that stroke of energetic effectiveness that seeps into his character to useful results. Ramis and his stoic nature work exactly to perfection, just as seeped into the ghost mumbo-jumbo with conviction. Hudson (introduced 40 minutes in) is the appropriate everyman required with select amusing moments that make him just as important as the others. Weaver has the knack for comedy with charming grace and useful chemistry spent with Murray, while Atherton makes a quality foil, and Potts & Moranis make suitable pieces to end the puzzle. Elmer Bernstein's musical score proves distinctive in balancing interest in comedy alongside the mystical parts, while Ray Parker Jr's "Ghostbusters" song proves quite hard to get out of one's head, for good reason (so good that Huey Lewis sued him for plagiarism). The effects for the movie work just enough to lend credibility to what is going on around us without becoming a distraction or the entire package to focus on, since the script glides along with careful timing that develops its story gradually to go along with its gags. In short: it is one of the most entertaining movies of its era.

Of course, the film would inspire a handful of follow-up material, none quite as striking as the original but memorable. There were two animated shows with The Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters alongside a direct film sequel with Ghostbusters II (1989), a "reboot" film of the same name in 2016, and Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021). Honestly, the best follow-up might have been Ghostbusters: The Video Game, a video game released in 2009 that saw the main quartet return to voice their characters in an action game that Aykroyd and Ramis also wrote, with the former calling it "essentially the third movie". At any rate, everyone and their mother have probably watched the film by now, but it is evident now more than ever that Ghostbusters is one of the best comedies of its time, a blockbuster for all time with success in its comedy and effects that ranks as a high mark for all involved in the best way possible.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

Review #1769: Ghostbusters: Afterlife. 

Cast: 

Carrie Coon (Callie Spengler), Finn Wolfhard (Trevor Spengler), Mckenna Grace (Phoebe Spengler), Paul Rudd (Gary Grooberson), Logan Kim (Podcast), Celeste O'Connor (Lucky Domingo), with Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Ernie Hudson (Dr. Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), and Bokeem Woodbine (Sheriff Domingo) Directed by Jason Reitman.

Review: 

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but there never needed to be a follow-up movie to Ghostbusters (1984). I say this as someone who watched the original film countless times as a kid with a DVD player, of course. I am sure you all know the great success that came from that movie as a cultural phenomenon, one that sprung from Dan Aykroyd and his fascination with the paranormal (along with his interest in updating old ghost movies he saw as a kid), with Harold Ramis serving as co-writer (of course, it was really a collaborative effort between them and Bill Murray to go along with director Ivan Reitman), which I'm sure you all know featured Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Ernie Hudson as the main quartet. Ghostbusters II (1989) was made because Columbia Pictures (after a bit of stalling) really wanted to make another one, and I think we all know that it proved to be "okay", although Reitman has defended it as one that just didn't compare well to the film released six days after it in Batman (1989), which he referred to as "kind of the flavour of that year" (no, they just wanted something funny without rolling their eyes at seeing the Statue of Liberty move). The idea of trying to do a sequel to Ghostbusters II came and went for decades, with one idea sending the crew to hell; some aspects of that script would eventually be utilized for the video game that was released in 2009 that featured the main quartet, which Aykroyd has stated was "essentially the third movie". Oh, right, this isn't the first time that someone tried to make a new Ghostbusters movie, since there was a reboot in 2016. Honestly, while the polarizing reactions to the idea of rebooting the series certainly was a bit weird, I just didn't have the spark of interest to really go to that many movies in a theater back in 2016 (which I saw just thirteen new movies, as compared to nineteen the next year). At any rate, that movie also featured appearances by the original cast and had I. Reitman as producer (made on a budget of $144 million, which led to a flop; this film was made for essentially half). Well, that and it also featured at least one Ghostbuster that fit the "everyman" type, but here we are. Truthfully, I don't think it should matter which movie you see, because one is here to watch a movie about folks going around catching ghosts - anybody that likes to prioritize some sort of agenda instead of overall quality for a film should probably seek a therapist (besides, "reboot", "remake" and "re-imagining" are all just words to roll one's eyes). The film was written by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman (son of Ivan Reitman), the latter of which is known for features such as Thank You for Smoking (2005) and Juno (2007).

The funny thing is that it ends up being more interesting as a look upon a family slowly coming together again rather than its ties to Ghostbusters nostalgia. I will re-iterate that I am completely fine with the movie, but there really doesn't need to be an entire franchise of these kind of films, as the "Ghost Corps" logo at the beginning states (which was also present on the previous film). I think this is the case of trying to balance the tightrope of nostalgia: either one ends up making a movie that seems a bit too familiar to the original experience (with or without original cast-mates) or one makes a movie that doesn't quite seem interesting enough to the folks that cared about it to begin with or possibly even other folks. To me, there are probably a few too many attempts to call back to what had been done before, and yet I found the movie successful with making a useful and riveting adventure in the ultimate shape of things. If it is good enough to show the kids, you should be fine with the rest. It might run neck-and-neck with the second film in okay joke delivery, but as long as one doesn't find themselves cringing over its 125 minute run-time, you should be fine here. The tech certainly looks right when it comes to updates (such as a RC trap), so that helps. Sure, Coon and Rudd are meant to be the adult anchors of the cast, but Grace proves to be the overall highlight, one that manages to have charm and fair-enough timing to keep the film rolling in its attempt at layering itself (i.e. not simply throwing kids at the hands of effects and yelling, instead relying on a few bad jokes done on purpose that are up my alley). Wolfhard and O'Connor share a fair rapport with each other, while Kim proves useful levity as the final piece of the make-shift quartet. Coon might not have as much to really do as one might expect, but she does fine with the material, which also applies to Rudd, who brings a bit of energy when it is needed. Well, I suppose there is something to say about how they go about using Harold Ramis in CG. Maybe, but we are not even a decade removed from when Rogue One (2016) did CG to re-create Peter Cushing and use a sound-alike for scenes, so I throw up my hands and say, "interpret for yourself." If I am not thinking "would the family be fine with this?", then it is fine with me. It delivers a sendoff to Ramis without turning maudlin. At any rate, the main cast has a few lines that prove alright for what is needed, in the sense that this isn't too much of a "paycheck role" or "oh dear God, what happened?", one to enjoy seeing old faces at least one more time; sure, Murray is always the main curiosity, but it was definitely just as interesting to see Potts and Hudson again (particularly with the latter, the most underrated actor of those two films). Honestly, I would hope that any future Ghostbusters film of any kind would find time to create a new threat to deal with, if only because two of the four feature films (and the video game!) have now had the same kind of threat for its climax. That isn't to say I did not enjoy the climax as a whole (because, hey, it is worth it), but there surely should be something out there with ghoulish curiosity worth looking into next time pertaining to running a business with un-licensed nuclear accelerators and ever-growing traps. If relying on the familiar is a crime, the film certainly would fall guilty of it, but it at least looks like it is having fun doing so without becoming a shell of what it means to make a useful family adventure worth watching.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Blues Brothers 2000.

Review #1699: Blues Brothers 2000.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Elwood J. Blues), John Goodman (Mack McTeer), Joe Morton (Commander Cabel Chamberlain), J. Evan Bonifant (Buster Blues), featuring Aretha Franklin (Mrs. Murphy), James Brown (Reverend Cleophus James), B.B. King (Malvern Gasperone), The Blues Brothers Band [Steve "The Colonel" Cropper (rhythm guitar / vocals), Donald "Duck" Dunn (bass guitar), Murphy Dunne (keyboards), Willie "Too Big" Hall (drums and percussion), Tom "Bones" Malone (trombone / tenor saxophone / vocals), "Blue Lou" Marini (alto saxophone / tenor saxophone / vocals), Matt "Guitar" Murphy (lead guitar), Alan "Mr. Fabulous" Rubin (trumpet / percussion / vocals)], The Louisiana Gator Boys [various musicians, featured below], Erykah Badu (Queen Moussette), Blues Traveler, Lonnie Brooks, Eddie Floyd, and Kathleen Freeman (Mother Mary Stigmata) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, and #1465 - An American Werewolf in London)

Review: 

"I was very pissed off by what Universal did to me on ‘Blues Brothers 2000′ and that was my first experience with the new corporate Hollywood. It’s very different. Everything is by committee now, and they destroyed that movie, though the music is still good."

If you remember correctly, the Blues Brothers was the result of two guys who loved the blues. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd (who credits Donnie Walsh and Richard “Hock” Walsh as the model for their characters) had performed together on Saturday Night Live with the act a few times before being asked by Steve Martin to be his opening act at one of his shows, which resulted in the live album Briefcase Full of Blues in 1978. This, alongside Belushi's success with Animal House (1978) only served to attract the interest of studios to engage in a bidding war to make a movie. Of course, that movie was racked by chaos involving substances and one half of its writing team being fairly green at the art of creating a screenplay. In other words, it wasn't easy to make a movie involving numerous music acts and the destruction of 103 cars while shooting exclusively in Chicago, or one that focused exclusively on the blues (in a time that was more about disco and less about the blues and soul) while dodging complaints of being too over-the-top (i.e. people who don't know shit) to become a classic. Perhaps it only makes sense that Aykroyd kept the name around with the chain restaurant (and live music concert hall) House of Blues, which has managed to have a few locations around the country, and Aykroyd has taken to tour on occasion with the band (alongside with John's younger brother, Jim). So yes, I suppose it makes sense that Aykroyd wanted to do another movie involving the blues and put more acts on film. Of course, it is also possible that Aykroyd and Landis wanted to re-capture lightning in a bottle when it comes to success - this was after all the sixth collaboration between the two of them, all of which that were done in the 1980s. Just remember, this was done in 1998.

Reportedly, Landis and Aykroyd did not have a great time with filming. While they were the writers behind the script, Universal Pictures made their stipulations clear that involved requiring a PG-13 rating and a child lead. Of course, the original pitch that the two was apparently just a re-hash of the original, since it would have featured a plot involving refurbishing the old orphanage (which would have featured Jim Belushi cast as "Brother Zee" alongside Goodman as a trio). Of course, Belushi could not do the film due to contractual obligations (at the time, he was cast in a lead part in the series Total Security, which didn't even make it to 1998), so the script instead was modified to include Morton. Have you ever seen a movie that looks and seems DOA as quickly as this one? Making a sequel eighteen years after the fact is already a tough task, but making a comedy sequel that has the task of replacing one part of its key nucleus is like trying to do The Three Stooges with only two actors. Of course, Belushi wasn't the only actor to have died in the gap between the two films (the film opens with a tribute to Belushi, Cab Calloway and John Candy). Oddly enough, everybody else in the Blues Brothers Band returns, and they all get to have a scene dedicated to re-uniting them all together, because how else would this film run for two hours? Well, there is one solution that would probably have worked to the benefit of everybody who don't care for stories about pint-sized kids getting mentors and voodoo witches: focus entirely on the music. Heck, cut around the "plot" with no explanation and call it artistic license, that would probably work just as well (that, or alienate a whole bunch of folks who wonder where Eric Clapton came from). Call it the "Mission from the Blues" Edition, if you will. Let me be clear: teenagers don't watch movies just because the rating is PG-13 instead of R, and they sure won't watch it just because there's a kid as one of the leads. That isn't say to that foul language and certain situations is important to making something people want to watch, but this is a movie that clearly is the result of studio notes from people who think they know better.

Perhaps it is my imagination or my memories have faded from the year that followed watching the original film, but Aykroyd seems to have thoroughly faded into nothingness when it comes to generating anything more than a quivering thought of a chuckle. The fact that he doesn't take off those Ray Ban sunglasses doesn't help either, a dubious marker of shame for someone who probably should have known better as both writer AND star. Honestly, I do wonder if Goodman would have prevailed with the original script when it comes to zippy energy. He seems kind of pale here, seemingly stuck in that suit and sunglasses like a statue without a home to draw a response. Morton gets to play both uptight authority and inevitable "Blues Brother" in the same film, and it is perhaps a fitting marker of dubiousness that his most notable scene is one where he sees the error of his ways by levitating in the air and changing his outfit. Embarrassment is a hard word to swallow when it involves your lead trio. Well, there is Bonifant, but you and I both know that child actors are either forgettable, passable, or terrible. Take a guess how he does. Perhaps if one had never heard of the original movie they would be okay with this one, or maybe if they watched it solely to see blues musicians play on a big screen. Name dropping is an annoying habit, but yes, there are quite a few performers to see (mostly near the end) for the "The Louisiana Gator Boys": B.B. King, Isaac Hayes, Lou Rawls, Billy Preston, Bo Diddley, Koko Taylor, you get the idea. It is far more interesting than the car wrecks or the attempts at plot that go nowhere (which involves the group being turned into plastic statues after being forced to play Caribbean music...???). In the end, this reeks of something you might see in the direct-to-video junkpile, yet here we are with a $31 million/123 minute movie of failure that benefits from moments of music more so than anything else - indeed, it is some sort of accomplishment to have brought back the same director and a portion of the same cast after many years apart and make a sequel inferior in every way. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.