Review #1718: The Stupids.
Cast:
Tom Arnold (Stanley Stupid), Jessica Lundy (Joan Stupid), Alex McKenna (Petunia Stupid), Bug Hall (Buster Stupid), Mark Metcalf (Colonel Neidermeyer), Bob Keeshan (Charles Sender), Christopher Lee (Evil Mr. Sender), Matt Keeslar (Lieutenant Neal), and Frankie Faison (Lloyd) 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, and #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000)
Review:
"I'm happy to say it's very successful on television, and extremely successful on video because people buy it for their kids. It's meant for ten-year-olds. That really went under the radar. But I really like that picture."
Honestly, I have been looking to the best time to finally cover this movie. I first heard of it last year when it came time to cover the month of August with films of the 1990s. Of course, my reasoning for not picking it was because I would have to have countered it with Dumb and Dumber (1994) because I thought they sounded similar. Of course, the other reason is that one can only pick so many movies from John Landis at a time. I don't think anybody had such a curious third decade in directing like he did, with this being the fourth of six works in that decade, and each one did not fare well with audiences (or critics, but that's another story). It isn't the best of his movies, but Landis certainly made an interesting effort. The movie was made for a company called Savoy Pictures, but the company decided to cut back on their interest in the movie business (going instead to being a TV station holding company), which occurred during post-production. This was one of the fourteen films in the Savoy roster that was shipped out to potential buyers, and New Line Cinema ended up buying six - this was one of them; somehow, the studio thought it was some sort of raunchy product as opposed to a children's movie (as evident by the surprise noted by the studio chief at a screening with Landis there). A budget of $25 million resulted in a $2.5 million return. Look, we are talking about a movie that starts with two characters that wake up from bed having slept on the foot-end of the bed. Actually, it perhaps should be noted that The Stupids is an adaptation of a series of children's books of the same name, which were written by Harry Allard and James Marshall, who wrote four books from 1974 to 1989. I imagine the books also happened to depict a family that looks like All-American apple pie with dull wit to spare (apparently, in one of the books, they think they died...instead they had experienced a blackout), so is it surprising that this is a movie that segues from missing garbage stumbles into a plot with military weapon-dealing, aliens, and a plethora of cameos? I don't think there are that many oblivious family movies out there, particularly ones that seem to hone to winners of the Darwin Award.
For me, the surprise is the fact that I actually didn't hate the movie. It might run at a predictable pace of 94 minutes, but it grew on me quite quickly. It has a fun quality of obliviousness that I appreciate, one that rolls in stride with dim-witted sensibility without smugness. I admire its incoherency that is headlined by Arnold, who certainly tried to dabble in being the star of silly comedies rather than just a supporting piece (this was the same year as Big Bully and Carpool, after all). I'm sure plenty of folks can find reason to resist its "kid at heart" charm, but I thought it was silly enough to work without wasting my time (in other words, this is the kind of dumb movie to enjoy rather than stuff like Kung Pow! Enter the Fist (2002), for example). Picking at the flaws of plot is like trying to fix your cat's bad habits - sometimes you just have to let it go. I imagine that Arnold must have had a weird time trying to play funny angles for a movie that requires a great deal of earnest honesty without playing to all of the obvious bits that could be done with a different kind of dopey stiffs. Lundy doesn't have as many little moments of neat honesty, but she fares well with keeping things at a fair pace alongside McKenna & Hall in moving forward with what needs to happen without looking confused (the kids play right to the audience, of course). Undeniably, the supporting presences prove just as curious. Metcalf and Keeslar are dry enough to contrast with the main quartet handily enough that usefully seem plucked from a low-rent thriller. You may be interested to know that this was the first and only film appearance for Keeshan, who was most known for his work in television, such as Captain Kangaroo (1955-1984) which he created and starred in; here, he is playing a kindly warm guy mistaken by the oblivious ones as a figure of evil, which in that sense makes for a good chuckle. Of course, Faison, playing an attendant at a museum mistaken for God, is warm enough to resonate in his interaction with Arnold & McKenna. Technically, the best cameo comes from David Cronenberg, because of how low key the cameo is when compared to other faces seen (although it is amusing to name-drop the name Atom Egoyan and link it Jenny McCarthy, amusing for probably the only time ever); of course, like any true horror fan, the appearance of Lee is worth a watch and a half, as he chews on this momentary bit of evil amusement the way you would expect. Of course, not everything is consistent. One is curious who went with all of the clay-mation designs, since it has an off-putting feel when you see pets and aliens all of a sudden in a style that doesn't quite click with the usual look of the movie, which almost goes a bit too all over the place for its climax. As a whole, it might be easy to see why this wasn't appreciated 25 years ago, but there is an earnest fun quality here that manages to persist over all odds for a likable winner. It might irritate folks who don't have the patience for the one joke the movie has, but others will surely get a huge kick out of its silly enjoyment, where being a stupid campy experience is kind of the point. I don't usually go against the boat, but I can't see why this movie was treated so poorly back then. Maybe it was a bit behind the curve when it came to oblivious silly humor, but honestly, I find this to be a curious little gem of a movie, one made by a competent director that obviously is having fun with silly material and a cast that is fairly game for where it needs to go in silliness without becoming obnoxious about it. In that sense, you might be fine with checking it out.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
