Ruthless People.

Review #1938: Ruthless People.

Cast: 

Danny DeVito (Sam Stone), Bette Midler (Barbara Stone), Judge Reinhold (Ken Kessler), Helen Slater (Sandy Kessler), Anita Morris (Carol Dodsworth), Bill Pullman (Earl Mott), William G. Schilling (Police Chief Henry Benton), Art Evans (Lt. Bender), Clarence Felder (Lt. Walters), and J. E. Freeman (Bedroom Killer) Directed by David Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, #699 - The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!, #821: The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear), Jim Abrahams (#028 - Hot Shots!, #375 - Hot Shots! Part Deux, #585, #664), Jerry Zucker (#585, #664, #1274 - First Knight, #1626 - Ghost, #1714 - Rat Race)

Review: 

This is an interesting film to cover. Oh sure, the filmmaking trio of Jim Abrahams and the Zucker brothers (Jerry and David) did plenty of comedy material back to their days with their own small theater in their native Wisconsin, but this one was certainly interesting to consider among the rest. For one, it is the only time that the trio directed a film together that they did not write themselves. The film was written by Dale Launer, who took inspiration from the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst; when asked about the similarities between the film and "The Ransom of Red Chief" (a story about a kid so annoying his kidnappers to where they pay the father to take him back), he said it was just a coincidence. He later wrote for films such as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) and My Cousin Vinny (1992). This was the third of three films that the trio directed together (after Airplane! and Top Secret), as from that point on, they would direct their own solo projects. The reason for their split was because they simply were ready to move in different directions alongside the fact that they did not see as much financial success as they believed they would from this (due to studio accounting, since the directing salary was split three ways with them). So yes, David Zucker would direct the first two Naked Gun films while also writing it with his brother and Abrahams, and each respective director went their own way in comedy.

So yes, here is a comedy with a premise built on a kidnapping that spirals into silliness when the hostage situation is really a one-way street, complete with mistaken identities, an unrelated serial killer, and a climax on a pier. It may be the odd film in their features, but it is a still a pretty good experience, one with plenty of amusement as a farce with fun misanthropes, complete with a look and style perfectly decadent for the era of the 1980s. With such a cheery dark premise, the key to making it all work is to have folks with enough energy to carry the material with the edge required. What we have is a key quartet ready to handle it together: DeVito, Midler, Reinhold, and Slater. DeVito shows great passion within a role designed with slime in mind: who else but him could play such an earnest villain? He has such confidence in the role, one that can sell the opening monologue with gusto, whereas a lesser actor would make it sound like an exposition-dump. Comeuppance or not, it is satisfying to see him engage as the master of the shit-eating grin in ways that other actors could only dream to get down the way he does. Midler (an actor when not singing on a regular basis) is the perfect type of abrasive: confident in her abilities and roaringly amusing, one who gets on the nerves with righteous timing and no sense of inordinate irritation. Reinhold and Slater play the kidnapping duo with resourceful timing as the nicest folks of the whole film (playing to the irony of them being the only folks we see commit a crime) as beleaguered and shy folks that we like just as much as the folks designed as being ones loved in hating. Morris and Pullman (in his first film role) are the other key group to the puzzle, with the former being good in the conniving side-person to the over-the-top hilarity and the latter being quite amusing as the dimwit. Probably the best representation of the film in its dark glee is an exchange between DeVito and Reinhold in which the latter is trying to lower the price down in the hostage giveaway only to find that the former is practically daring them to send the hostage to the morgue (they would know, because they just came from there!). As a comedy of misunderstandings filled with odd little people, it works out pretty well for 94 minutes, presenting its ever-growing odd situations with useful execution by pros in a useful curiosity: a dynamite script without their intervention that they handle just as well as their other films. Crude but unapologetic, Ruthless People is a neat little gem worth looking into.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Rat Race.

Review #1714: Rat Race.

Cast: 

John Cleese (Donald P. Sinclair), Breckin Meyer (Nicholas "Nick" Schaffer), Amy Smart (Tracy Faucet), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Owen Templeton), Seth Green (Duane Cody), Vince Vieluf (Blaine Cody), Lanei Chapman (Merrill Jennings), Whoopi Goldberg (Vera Baker), Jon Lovitz (Randy Pear), Kathy Najimy (Beverly "Bev" Pear), Brody Smith (Jason Pear), Jillian Marie Hubert (Kimberly Pear), Rowan Atkinson (Enrico Pollini), Dave Thomas (Harold Grisham), and Wayne Knight (Zack Mallozzi) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, #1274 - First Knight, #1626 - Ghost)

Review: 

Do you remember It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)? Stanley Kramer wanted to make a epic comedy movie, and he certainly did so with a frantic and diverting movie that stuffed its audience with plenty to try and laugh with, having plenty of comedic talent of the time and folks from yesteryear. Naturally, it inspired a few films that wanted to cash in on making an ensemble comedy involving folks trying to cash on greed and luck. These films included Scavenger Hunt (1979) and Million Dollar Mystery (1987), with the latter even having a sweepstakes to locate money (and yes, a teen won the $1 million contest). Of course, really one film that comes to this film when it comes to star-studded madcap mess movies, the easiest film to correlate with this movie is The Cannonball Run (1981). Neither movie earned much respect from folks who think they know better than audiences, but each has certainly had their own legacy in the decades that have followed each release. I say this for a movie that has turned 20 years old in Rat Race, and I would like to note that I have finally closed the circle with Zucker, in that this is the last feature film to be directed by Jerry Zucker (of course, I have forgotten about Ruthless People (1986), but that was a collaborative effort, so...), and I suppose it makes sense that the last one is a comedy after directing two films meant to be taken seriously (one with chuckles, one with unintentional chuckles, mind you). Of course, he hasn't stopped making things entirely, as he has added producing to his foray, but it is odd to see the last effort of a director best known for his work with his brother David with making spoofs that were, you know, pretty funny.

To make it short, Rat Race is not any of the films I have mentioned. Rat Race is quite disappointing, mostly because it manages to waste one's time in mediocrity, a movie that surely looked better on paper. Sure, one can always make the excuse that a comedy involving greedy folks that behave like cartoon characters doesn't have to have its head 100% straight, but there is really one requirement when it comes to making a silly movie: having consistent gags that land. Of course, it would also have helped to simply not pack so many cast members in there for one to try and follow. For a film that has six distinct groups of folks among 10 adults (and two children, but does that really count?), I find that less than half of them are effective in actually generating laughs. It is the 112 minute equivalent of stepping on a rake, where one brief moment of relief can then be followed by stepping into something that could have been avoided for no pain. The film was written by Andy Breckman. He wrote for a variety of projects such as radio, Saturday Night Live, and a handful of feature films (such as Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988)), although the most notable creation by Breckman came the year after the release of this film with Monk. So yes, I suppose there is a lesson to be learned here or something. I think the best lesson is that sometimes, you too can cast a whole bunch of famous people who seem like they can be funny and pair them into an experience that never goes above "bare minimum" at any point for more than five minutes at a time, managing to accomplish a movie of dummy characters that do dummy things. 

There are basically two highlights: Cleese, who seems to revel in a role full of momentary eccentricity (i.e. rich people being weird) that lets him have fun without trouble. Lovitz is the second best thing, if only because he revels in the smarmy circumstances that bring everyone together for money the best - he gets stuck in the weirdest scenarios but actually lands them for chuckles, such as stealing a Nazi car or inadvertently doing a salute to WWII veterans. He seems craven enough to make it work for actual interest, while Najimy does okay when paired with Lovitz. Honestly, the others can be ranked like this in terms of mediocrity-to-less fun: Green/Vieluf, Meyer, Goldberg/Chapman, Smart, Atkinson, and Gooding Jr. Trust me, having Meyer as your attempt at a straight man is a wobbly sign already (Smart might have been a better choice, but hey, I guess flying a helicopter dangerously is meant to play for c-r-a-z-y laughs). Green and Vieluf aren't consistent, but at least one can see where things were meant to be funny. You would think an actor who won an Academy Award for essentially comic relief would be just fine here, but Gooding seems quite lost here, as if he is being befuddled by lame scenario-making that goes from something typical (i.e. losing clothing) to painful (suffering the indignity of a group of Lucille Ball impersonators). Goldberg (oh hey, that previous sentence applies here too) and Chapman don't get that much to do besides an interminable cameo involving Kathy Bates and a stupid squirrel, while Atkinson might as well just sleepwalk through his role with how bland it is. Watching a bunch of folks you probably aren't meant to like plunder depths for money is a boring idea, point blank. The ending is especially insulting, because if you are making a comedy about folks willing to go the extra mile in racing for $2 million by any greedy means necessary, you better have a conclusion that seems amusing enough to make it all fit together. Having all of them crash into a Smash Mouth concert for food donations is not that. It is a lazy ending, a bare minimum ending that might as well be equivalent to having the characters all go to a soup kitchen after a heist on Christmas. Again, not to steal from the well of citing better movies, but Mad World managed to see all the characters get their just desserts in a hospital bed that made a good punchline without seeming like a cheat. Playing "All Star" helps no one. Going around and giving money to a concert to the horror of a rich guy isn't really as funny as it could be, and it is probably because the movie has plodded around for too long with being as bare minimum as possible to where it doesn't matter. Two decades later, the only thing one learns from this film is that some movies should just stay on paper. Or perhaps one should just stick with the classics, really.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Ghost.

Review #1626: Ghost.

Cast: 
Patrick Swayze (Sam Wheat), Demi Moore (Molly Jensen), Whoopi Goldberg (Oda Mae Brown), Tony Goldwyn (Carl Bruner), Rick Aviles (Willie Lopez), Vincent Schiavelli (Subway Ghost), Gail Boggs (Louise), Armelia McQueen (Clara), and Phil Leeds (Emergency Room Ghost)  Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, and #1274 - First Knight)

Review: 
"You have an idea of where you want to get, but you have to experiment your way through it, and it might take a long time to get there.”

It's easy to say a movie is a ride before you actually see it. One that tries to balance romance and comedy within a mystery that certainly has endured for itself after three decades as a romance for the spirits. I suppose romances always had a big appeal with audiences, so it shouldn't be a surprise that this was actually the highest grossing film of its year (beating out films with their own notable reputations like Home Alone and Pretty Woman). The film began its script life through an idea Bruce Joel Rubin (whose two previous writing credits involved death with Brainstorm (1983) and Deadly Friend (1986)) had involving inspiration taken from Hamlet, in which the ghost desired for someone to take avenge him. Years of approaching studios for the script (written in 1984) led to Jerry Zucker being approached by Paramount Pictures to do the film; Rubin reportedly cried when he heard the news, thinking that it would be turned into a comedy, owing to the success that the Wisconsin native Zucker had with films like Airplane! (1980) with his brother David and Jim Abrahams. Discussions with the director over quibbles with the script to improve its structure led to better confidence in Zucker, who had expressed interest in the film not so much to break out of comedy but instead to just make a good film. This was the fourth film that Zucker directed, and it is one of just two that did not fall into comedy (the other was First Knight) - he wanted to make a "roller-coaster ride" that would make you laugh and cry. 

Rubin believes the film taps into some sort of primal thing with audiences, since it deals with death and closure within romance in fantasy. There is certainly a bit of truth to that argument, since what we have is a fairly interesting film with some spiritual interest that will soothe those searching for something pleasing in entertainment without too many quibbles. Others might bristle at its 128 minutes as perhaps being a bit too labored in pace, and its reach for thriller tropes that could be thought of as contrived when leading to its drawn out ending. In other words, it is the kind of entertainment that could be thought of as either sweet or corny depending on one's patience for such material (i.e. something like Titanic, albeit with more/less hokum). Is it one of the best films of its year? Not exactly but being a good film with some staying power isn't exactly a bad thing either, being one that proved rewarding for everyone who did the film, particularly with Rubin and Goldberg. Believe it or not, the lead role was actually a hard one to cast, since I suppose playing a ghostly observer isn't something easy to peg to one actor, with even Paul Hogan rejecting the role because he thought it wasn't funny enough (he would star in a film involving ghosts with Almost an Angel the same year). A showing of Road House (1989) furthered Rubin's belief in Swayze for the lead while conversely not convincing Zucker, and it was an audition with Swayze (who wanted to break from action fare) that convinced the director. Swayze has the charm required in someone tasked to observe and find one's place without the one needed most, balancing that line between chilled and confident that naturally sells his time spent with Moore for all the tissues needed in curiosity. Moore does well enough with chilled mourning that plays the other side of the romantic coin with great interest, as the pottery sequence allows them to move with grace that dazzles in crisp romantic charm, and it repeats itself with soothing closure for the end. The film kicks itself into the next gear of interest when Goldberg shows up around the forty-minute mark. Who would've have believed that a comedian could play a charlatan so well? Her and Swayze do quite well with keeping the film on its toes in amusement without it turning into a bit just for ghostly giggles. This seems most apparent with the sequence spent in the bank, as one guides the other with conniving chuckles that keeps the plot rolling; if The Color Purple (1985) was her breakout role, this only proves to confirm her obvious talent within humor and soothing truth. Not to be forgotten in all of this is Goldwyn (in his fourth film role), walking that tight rope of assured and sniveling that does quite well with what is needed in balance, while Aviles (a stand-up comedian) plays the heavy to useful effect. Schiavelli may only have two scenes, but he makes them count for what it is worth in rough advisory that nevertheless sticks in your mind. As a whole, it is the passion of the film that keeps things going on as decently as they go, for better or worse - it has a neat cast and a stirring music score from Maurice Jarre that makes for a serviceable effort. It has a range of memorable moments that keep it on the level more so than the aspects that could have sunk a lesser effort that drives this film to three decades (and counting) of endurance for all the right reasons.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

First Knight.

Review #1274: First Knight.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (King Arthur), Richard Gere (Lancelot), Julia Ormond (Guinevere), Ben Cross (Prince Malagant), John Gielgud (Oswald), Liam Cunningham (Sir Agravain), Christopher Villiers (Sir Kay), Valentine Pelka (Sir Patrise), Colin McCormack (Sir Mador), and Alexis Denisof (Sir Gaheris) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret! and #664 - Airplane!)

Review: 
Making a medieval movie certainly is a familiar one, especially when it comes to the King Arthur legend. It seems irresistible to compare this film to Excalibur (1981), but there are key differences present in the script, with a screenplay from William Nicholson and a story from Lorne Cameron, David Hoselton and Nicholson that takes inspiration from the writings of Chrétien de Troyes regarding Lancelot and Arthur, which has an absence of fantasy elements. The age difference in this love triangle is also significant, with Ormond being out-aged by Connery and Gere by 35 and 15 years, respectively. But this really isn't a movie where one can just use the age as an easy out to give a critique. No, this is a film that is already pretty mediocre enough to sink itself, squandering its cast alongside an entertaining Jerry Goldsmith score with a film that doesn't have enough energy in the right places to make this a consistently worthwhile experience. When one thinks a battle sequence would help the film get going, the film eventually proves that seeing people fight with swords and mini crossbows doesn't quite pan out this time around. Connery takes 30 minutes to appear, which means one will spend quite a bit of time seeing the presumed seeds of chemistry between Gere and Ormond being planted, which really seem more like dollar-store seeds more than anything. If you had a part in making a King Arthur play in high school (or less generously, middle school), you would likely find more interest present between these two characters that actually resonate better than what is seen here. Even having Connery in the picture doesn't help this love triangle seem anything more than a badly written romance novel, as if one needs campiness to make this have a spark. Gere comes out of it the worst of the three, not seeming interesting enough to really drive things into suspense, whether with a sword or with a woman, while Connery seems so mildly interested in what the script says as a paragon of virtue nearing his end (nice to make a centuries-old spoiler), and Ormond manages to comes off okay. The two share just a kiss, as if any more passion would prove too shocking or riveting. Cross doesn't prove too well as a villain, perhaps because the film is too dull to really make him seem like an interesting one to follow around, especially when it comes to the final fight, notably done with CGI swords to make for faster movements. Gielgud makes a small appearance that works just as well as one could expect without being a mark of ridiculousness for the famed actor. There just happens to be too much baggage and not enough energy, honestly. If you don't have tension nor passion in a film like this, you have a disappointment that proves to be a utter frustration to sit through, where one can pick at its failings and still wonder what they missed. It isn't laughably bad, but it sure isn't a fun one to go through, whether one is big on the King Arthur legend or not.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Airplane!

Review #664: Airplane!

Cast
Robert Hays (Ted Striker), Julie Hagerty (Elaine Dickinson), Leslie Nielsen (Dr. Rumack), Peter Graves (Capt. Clarence Oveur), Lloyd Bridges (Steve McCroskey), Robert Stack (Capt. Rex Kramer), Lorna Patterson (Randy), Stephen Stucker (Johnny), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Roger Murdock), Frank Ashmore (Victor Basta), and Jonathan Banks (Gunderson) Directed by David Zucker, Jim Abrahams (#028 - Hot Shots! and #375 - Hot Shots! Part Deux), and Jerry Zucker.

Review
I knew I would eventually review this film, I just didn't know it would take so long to do so. It was worth the wait. When it comes to slapstick and having efficient gags, this is the movie people refer to for reference. But what also helps the movie is the fact the gags mesh with the story and not just outright overwhelm it. The movie is silly and also really, really, fun to watch. It's a breeze to watch, and watching how the actors react to all of this (hint: not very well) also helps. My favorite character isn't really a character, it's Otto, the inflatable balloon. It's just so amusing watching Otto, especially at the end, when he inflates...all by himself, with a inflatable girlfriend to boot. Hays and Hagerty do a fine job complimenting each other, their best scene is when they dance disco, or maybe I'm just amused of how people danced to disco (as opposed to now). Nielsen is a highlight as well, if it was anyone else playing that role, surely (see what I did there) the lines wouldn't be so memorable. The movie has dozens of gags, along with brief appearances by Ethel Merman (playing Ethel Merman) and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar...as a pilot. What I like is how the music sounds so serious, which is really funny given the tone, all due to Elmer Bernstein. The movie is quick and effective, and it's a good way to spend 90 minutes, along with being a really fun experience.

Billy...have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Top Secret!

Review #585: Top Secret!

Cast
Val Kilmer (Nick Rivers), Lucy Gutteridge (Hillary Flammond), Christopher Villiers (Nigel), Jeremy Kemp (General Streck), Omar Sharif (Agent Cedric), Peter Cushing (Bookstore Proprietor), Michael Gough (Dr. Paul Flammond), and Warren Clarke (Colonel von Horst) Directed by Jim Abrahams (#028 - Hot Shots! and #375 - Hot Shots! Part Deux), David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker.

Review
This is the first film reviewed on this show directed by the famed ZAZ trio (though I've reviewed two films of one of the three already), who are more well known for directing Airplane! and The Naked Gun. So how does this film hold up? If you love sight gags and love a dose of charm with an exceptional cast that's not too long, you'll love this film. Val Kilmer meshes well with the cast and he also seems to be a decent singer as well, the rest of the cast is certainly memorable (especially Omar Sharif, whose last scene consists of him being stuck in a crushed car...and surviving), and it is nice to see Gough and Cushing, even if it is brief. The sight gags are fun and brief, and this is a movie that is entertaining enough to last 90 minutes, which is perfectly fine for a Friday night on Summer break.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.