Big.

Review #2524: Big. 

Cast: 

Tom Hanks (Adult Josh Baskin; David Moscow as Joshua "Josh" Baskin), Elizabeth Perkins (Susan Lawrence), Robert Loggia (Mr. MacMillan), John Heard (Paul Davenport), Jared Rushton (William "Billy" Francis Kopecki), Jon Lovitz (Scott Brennen), Mercedes Ruehl (Mrs. Baskin), Harvey Miller (David), Debra Jo Rupp (Miss Patterson), and Josh Clark (Mr. Baskin) Directed by Penny Marshall (#1500 - A League of their Own)

Review: 

“I guess I just hide behind things, whether it’s my whining or my sense of humor. Every once in a while I’m decisive--for about a minute. For me, acting was easier, because the gun goes off and you have to go for it. With directing, I know people on movie sets want leadership, but I don’t exude that captain-of-the-ship image. I’d get on the phone with (“Big” producer) Jim Brooks and apologize all the time and say, ‘I’m no good at this. I think if he didn’t know me as well as he did, he would’ve been scared that I was running the movie.”

I had this movie on my shelf for a few years because even with a good reputation, sometimes you just kick something down the road until the time finally comes to actually talk about it, so here is a review about a movie that basically is hard not to like. To start with, Penny Marshall started as a director with the encouragement of her brother Garry while starring on the sitcom Laverne & Shirley, which saw her direct a couple of episodes. She was tapped to make her feature film debut with Peggy Sue Got Married before creative differences* saw her drop out, but she soon got hired to direct Jumpin' Jack Flash [1986] (a movie that was supposed to have Howard Zieff as director) that she basically summarized as the equivalent of "cramming four years of college into one semester." This was the first screenplay for both Gary Ross and Anne Spielberg; he had worked as a fisherman and dabbled in speechwriting she had worked for Amblin Entertainment. Various people were thought of to do the film that ranged from Steven Spielberg with Harrison Ford to eventually finding its way with Marshall, who approached various others and nearly had Robert De Niro tapped to play the title role before it fell through, which opened the door for Hanks. Released in the wake (read: a whole year) of a few films that happened to deal with age-changing with Like Father Like Son (1987), 18 Again! (1988), and Vice Versa (1988), Big was the biggest hit of the bunch, garnering Academy Award nominations for Ross, Spielberg, and Hanks; the success of the film even led to a Broadway musical adaptation. Two versions of the movie exist: the original cut was 104 minutes while you can see on home media an "extended edition" that runs at 130 minutes that basically lends more time to the young and adult characters (for more information, see here).

For a movie that basically is a fairy tale about figuring out the real joys of being a person beyond being "grown up". All childhoods come to an end, but it doesn't mean the joy (whether it involves the company of others or, well, aspirations for bigger things) has to fade away. One of the more important things that Marshall had to focus on was making sure that Hanks "had to be 12, not play at being 12." The movie basically rides on the fact that Hanks has to aim for innocence that isn't just doing a bit for the sake of doing it, particularly since you're spending time first with Moscow and Rushton before getting to the Zoltar machine (without needing too much time spent on what is, well, a wish gone right). Hanks was already pretty well-established a comedy guy (most notably with Bosom Buddies and Splash), but there is something so effective here in how vulnerable he proves himself to be here in the experience of someone who realizes there is more to life than the crushing grind of "things" that also happens to be quite funny. It works just as well for Perkins in the realization that comes in seeing a bit of warmth in the cold place of what people think of adulthood and in business (or in trying to climb up the ladder, if one wants to mechanical about would-be romances). Heard and Loggia each provide a few amusing moments in the contrast between office politics that basically do sound vacant and odd from the perspective of a kid (alternatively, there's a scene where Heard is trying to win really hard at paddleball that basically shows just how childish one can be even in front of people that also is pretty funny). You get a movie with gags about realizing the odds and ends of life through the wide-eyed curiosity of Hanks that also has time to actually have commitment to its charm and light fantasy. Much like a Walking Piano, Big is a worthwhile curiosity that can be played over and over again to find new keys to appreciate from all involved.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*as seen in this article. She was also thought of for Joy of Sex, apparently.

Cat People (1982).

Review #2290: Cat People (1982). 

Cast: 

Nastassja Kinski (Irena Gallier), Malcolm McDowell (Paul Gallier), John Heard (Oliver Yates), Annette O'Toole (Alice Perrin), Ruby Dee (Female), Ed Begley Jr (Joe Creigh), Scott Paulin (Bill Searle), Frankie Faison (Detective Brandt; dubbed by Albert Hall), Lynn Lowry (Ruthie), and John Larroquette (Bronte Judson) Directed by Paul Schrader.

Review: 

"Cat People wasn’t successful. It really fell between two stools: it was an attempt to have things both ways, which is to have a classy film and a horror film. Well, the horror audience went and said, ‘Hey, this doesn’t look like a horror film, it’s not for us’, and the sophisticated audience went and said, ‘Hey, this is just a horror film.’ So it wasn’t really satisfying to the audience."

Sure, give a few decades and you can just remake a movie right then and there. The 1942 Cat People had been a team effort that had DeWitt Bodeen write the screenplay as based in collaboration with producer Val Lewton, director Jacques Tourneur, and editor Mark Robson. The process of remaking the film was first brought up by Milton Subotsky before Universal Pictures eventually got the rights and made their own push that took several years of the 1970s (Robert Vadim was interested to direct at one point). You might recognize the screenwriter in Alan Ormsby, the co-director and writer of Deranged (1974) and a variety of other writing projects. Universal tapped Paul Schrader (who once labeled the 1942 rendition as one that he didn't find very good) to direct the film, with most knowing him for his work on scripts such as Taxi Driver (1976) before becoming a director with Blue Collar (1978); he claimed that he had contributed to the writing of the film in terms of its prologue and the ending to make it more distinct from the original, although Ormsby claims otherwise. The movie was a mild success with audiences at the time, or at the very least managed to accomplish the goal of not inspiring a filmmaker to try and do their own remake of a remake four decades later. Schrader has been quoted as saying that in his attempts to do a genre film as a "very salutary exercise" in not being about himself, he ended up making a movie that ranked up there as among his most personal.

The funny thing about the films is that it accomplishes one thing in particular: it sure is distinct on its own merit from the original that you won't mistake it as a copy because of its erotic elements within the perils of flesh. You might remember that the original dealt with a woman (played by Simone Simon) who thought they were descended from a tribe of, well, cat people that may or may not turn into black panthers when aroused (it basically had elements of the noir); the lady in that movie went the whole road to marriage without getting kissed. Here we have a woman who must confront the peril of really having a family tradition of were-cats that must kill in order to turn back. It just so happens to involve a few bits of skin and the mix of effects and cats in a movie best described as lurid curiosity for 118 minutes. If you asked me which movie called Cat People is the better among the two, I think I would throw my hands in the air and shrug at it basically being a dead heat because each are from accomplished filmmakers that represent their era quite well in overall enjoyment vs. rewarding the patience of those who are into what it is selling. Kinski practically lifts the film almost entirely to the realm of curious because of how she acts in the film without really even acting that much to begin with (apparently, she seemed to felt manipulated when it came to her assessment of the resulting film). Her grace really does have the instincts of a cat in frenzied timing that sells the plight of flesh. Whether you compare the two films or not, she sure exceeds Simon when it comes to worthwhile lead performances by a handy margin. McDowell may not be in the movie too long, but he sure is loopy enough to belong in weirdo enjoyment that he sells from the word "go", but I say that as someone who went with the film's peddling of ideas right then and there (you really should just see it right then and there rather than skimming the plot). Heard and O'Toole are fine, albeit on a smaller scale that only works some of the time in trying to do a would-be love triangle that only works for those who like the actors enough in the first place; Heard just happens to be the ideal guy to chase a girl like Kinski in strange pursuer/pursued, as opposed to the mild other. Besides, it is quite the curiosity to see Heard having to engage with the climax in a cathouse blues type of way that really will make or break the film for you when it comes to stupendous suspension of disbelief; I dont know if I would call the film "classy", but even "dedicated" is a better way to put it than,  say, "not fun horror". It is a movie that looks and sounds exactly on point of mystical curiosity, never turning itself off even when not going all-out for effects work (you get some blood anyway). As a whole, it is a strange sensual kind of sensationalism that one will either take right in for scintillating enjoyment or baffled disappointment. It feels good to be on the side of the former but have it your way among the creatures of the night.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Chilly Scenes of Winter.

Review #2193: Chilly Scenes of Winter.

Cast: 

John Heard (Charles Richardson), Mary Beth Hurt (Laura Connelly), Peter Riegert (Sam), Kenneth McMillan (Pete), Gloria Grahame (Clara), Nora Heflin (Betty), Jerry Hardin (Patterson), Tarah Nutter (Susan Richardson), Mark Metcalf (Jim Connelly), and Griffin Dunne (Mark) Written and Directed by Joan Micklin Silver (#1818 - Hester Street and #1988 - Between the Lines)

Review: 

 ''I was determined not to violate the book, which I loved. I wanted the general action to be the same, but my ending was too triumphant. People in the crew kept coming up to me when we were shooting and telling me, 'This is the story of my life.' But when I asked them if it turned out like it did in the movie, they would always admit that it hadn't.''

In 1976, a novel called Chilly Scenes of Winter by Ann Beattie was released into stores, with her having been a regular author in The New Yorker. Three actors in Mark Metcalf, Amy Robinson, and Griffin Dunne were interested to produce the book as a film by purchasing the film rights (after a whole bunch of studios rejected it), much to the interest of Joan Micklin Silver (who read some of Beattie's stories) and liked the book. Claire Townsend liked it when she worked at Fox and when she moved to United Artists to be a production executive, she eventually got them to finance the project and also eventually get the idea of Silver to be the one to direct (the group had liked her anyway). The group stayed with their favoring of John Heard to play the read (rather than cast someone like John Ritter as favored by UA) while going with Mary Beth Hurt to act opposite him when Meryl Streep apparently wanted...Sam Waterston to play opposite her. It was United Artists who botched the film when it came for original release in 1979 that had the title of "Head over Heels" because they thought it was a more viable title, with the Heels title coming around as a joke suggestion when UA wouldn't go with the original book title because of some sort of perception that "Chilly" and "Winter" wouldn't sell well as a title. The ending of the film and the one you see now are different in the inclusion of one more thing, namely the idea of a romance that isn't as over as it seems, which actually matched the novel but was not what Silver had in mind. Silver wrote the film herself after approaching Beattie and getting a no (Beattie instead wanted a small part in the film, which ended up with her playing a waitress with no lines). In 1982, United Artists Classics approached her about re-releasing it under the aforementioned Winter title, complete with keeping the ending she had envisioned (which instead of ending with our lead coming home after a jog to a woman is instead one where it just ends on him immediately after the jog). That version had a decidedly less chilly reception to where there is one of those arguments for calling it a "cult classic" (if one is in the Criterion market, look no further?). Amidst of a handful of television films, Silver's next film as a feature director wasn't until 1988's Crossing Delancey.

Well, it is an anatomy of a chilled romance (being set and mostly filmed in Salt Lake City, no less), so I do wonder what exactly UA thought they were going to get by playing it light? It is a crashing, uneasy sense of comedy-drama that isn't the easiest sell but works just right for 92 minutes. Really you could interpret the film as belonging to the fallacies that come in relationships of the heart and with friends, specifically the one where people really can be their own worst enemy. Consider that this is the kind of movie that has someone make someone go to a skin flick and then have a thing about someone seemingly exalting them. Heartbreak happens, but life goes on, regardless of much it stings (such as, say, a friend who betrayed them or, well, losing a love). Wrapped within a melancholic movie that basically harkens to a noir within its first batch of lines of a man wrapped in what he wants (but doesn't have), is the note that comes in clearly at the end: people are a series of contradictions and opportunities that either never came or skipped them by. It is an endearing movie for all of the failures that happen in life. Seeing it now, it seems totally right that Silver had Heard pegged for this role right then and there, because he really does make this role one to look upon not with judgement or outright sympathy but with curiosity. There is something fascinating in seeing that all-consuming energy come into focus with all of the hang-ups and eccentricities that Heard makes in this tightrope-type of act here. It could've easily just been a film about a guy who simply gets a bit weird about a woman for it to go right in the end or just a straight stalker movie but Heard makes it fit right square in the middle in that amusing anatomy of a fall. Hurt makes that idea of chemistry between people who simply have different ideas in mind of who they are to others. Being trapped between the idea of someone who doesn't seem that particularly interesting to them and the other choice of "obsession in the form of a six-pack". One sees her as a puzzle piece that isn't one to easily peg down beyond first appearances, because nobody is that easy to see through or figure out as if they were an object to chase. That scene they share in which they discuss the ideas of boundaries that goes from playful to eye-raising (whether taken literally or not) is pretty much the whole film served on a platter with how they handle it. Roles like this do make me wonder if I should see more movies that have Riegert in them, because even a role where he is just a playful pal that in one scene moves along with a ploy with Heard to just go with playing a prospective couple looking around just so they can "stumble" upon a certain woman through a salesman. Grahame gets to strut in the eyes of mental feebleness for an interesting act to see with Heard. As a whole, it is a wonderful thing to see this film in the way that Silver and company envisioned play out for people to seek out rather than wonder what could have been because of how delightfully uncomfortable it is. It walks that fine line of comedy and drama for a pretty good effort in human frailitiy. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Between the Lines.

Review #1988: Between the Lines.

Cast: 

John Heard (Harry Lucas), Lindsay Crouse (Abbie), Jeff Goldblum (Max Arloft), Jill Eikenberry (Lynn), Bruno Kirby (David Entwhistle), Gwen Welles (Laura), Stephen Collins (Michael), Lewis J. Stadlen (Stanley), Jon Korkes (Frank), Michael J. Pollard (The Hawker), Lane Smith (Roy Walsh), Joe Morton (Ahmed), and Marilu Henner (Danielle) Directed by Joan Micklin Silver (#1818 - Hester Street)

Review: 

Admittedly, if you want to follow up a sleeper hit that was thought to be too "ethnic" from big studios, I suppose an ensemble piece with up-and-coming actors is not the oddest thing to come up with. As with her last effort in Hester Street (1975), Raphael D. Silver served as producer. The film was written by Fred Barron and David M. Helpern Jr. Barron had written for the Boston Phoenix, an alternative weekly periodical and he used his experiences there to help shape the script (incidentally, Silver had worked for the Village Voice before becoming a director. This was the second of a total of seven theatrical films that Silver directed. The cast might be the most standout quality in terms of the sheer rise that came from some of them: this was the debut for Heard, Eikenberry, and Morton, who each had started in stage and television before this film, while Goldblum had made his debut in film only three years prior while Crouse was fresh off supporting roles in All the President's Men (1976) and Slap Shot (1977). Perhaps fitting the tone of the film is the inclusion of Welles, who earlier had a supporting role in Nashville (1976). The film was shot and set in Boston.

The movie has a picturesque style of trying to show a look at a time that was within a bare plot composed of episodic pace and an attempt at forming an interesting ensemble. I just wish it was a better movie to sit through for 101 minutes, because it is an experience that seems hopelessly stuck between wistful reminiscences of a time long ago and mildly interesting humor without ever sticking to one main plot. It lingers in episodic format without making a stand for itself beyond trying to ride with mildly likeable people (except for one glaring case) that has a last act that feels like it should have been firmly in the middle. Look, you don't need much to go on about the dangers of big business in little papers, but the bare minimum is meant to be doubly excelled, not barely cleared. Heard makes for a mostly capable lead in frustration and drive. His on-again, off-again dynamic with Crouse is at least entertaining to try and hold a film longer than the other ideas presented, if only because one would like to see more when presented with someone loaded in talent that could use her as just an excuse to not write. You can already see how Goldblum became a curious presence in film here, since he practically gobbles the attention right out from under folks, one that sees him act like a flake in mostly satisfying ways that might as well be a predecessor to his role in The Big Chill (1983); I especially like a scene where he talks with a performance artist with accompanying acts of "art". Kirby makes a suitable middleman in terms of wistful charm in the foreground. Korkes makes an okay beleaguered head to the process. It should only figure the one actor who is the most loathsome in terms of who they became in later life has the least interesting performance. Collins is simply not fun to watch, seemingly trying to bring humor in self-involved author crap that is bland and easily skippable when contrasted with literally anyone on screen. Whether intended as a caricature of writers who want to write the "great American novel" or not, he doesn't do anything worth mentioning positively. Hell, Pollard is playing a cliche with the newspaper salesman on the street, and he runs circles around him when it comes to general charm because one finds Pollard endearing in the foreground and background in those moments, while Stadlen is at least meant to be a foil in his advertising shill persona. Smith only shows up in the last couple of scenes as the prospective buyer of the news station that clearly means big changes...and since the movie ends quickly after that, his impact is diminished despite the fact that he makes an imposing figure. I mean, sure, make an argument all you want about the creeping danger of big business onto papers that supposedly tap into the city, but don't just latch it in late (putting "rumors of a big buy" through the film doesn't cut it). The presentation of contrasts between Heard-Crouse and Collins-Welles would be interesting if the latter didn't end with a completely lame resolution to the latter that is less a case of "human decision-making" and more just a lazy way to throw things together. As a whole, what I like about the movie is the occasional amusing moments that come within trying to make a living in newspapers with a place now resigned to being a middle-ground on the way up or down for people, one that has some ideas wishing to flow for a stronger experience. The loss of innocence within a newspaper that sees its ambition squashed would make an intriguing tragedy, but here one finds a movie that can barely hold the jockstrap of Park Row (1952) It might be an interesting time capsule for a time long past in terms of newspaper media being more than just the option used for people who don't like reading a phone screen, and that is probably the best compliment one could make. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)

Movie Night: Sharknado.

Review #625: Sharknado.

Cast
Ian Ziering (Finley "Fin" Shepard), Tara Reid (April Wexler), Chuck Hittinger (Matt Shepard), Aubrey Peeples (Claudia Shepard), John Heard (George), Cassie Scerbo (Nova Clarke), Jaason Simmons (Baz), and a Sharkando full of sharks. Directed by Anthony C. Ferrante.

Review
Let's be honest, the movie is cheaply made, with no name actors*, effects that border on hilarity, and science that makes life look fake...And yet the movie is still awesome to watch. It's a terrible movie, but it is a fun terrible movie to watch, it's not like The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, which is beyond awful and joyless, instead it's a movie that is just so laughable in every aspect, and yet the movie trudges on, not caring what anyone thinks. The fact that this was even made means that literally anything can happen now, which obviously means that in my lifetime the Chicago Cubs will win the World Series*. To say that this is a guilty pleasure is an understatement, and we all have guilty pleasures, mine is watching WWE wrestling*, yours is probably something else that's either more rational, or not. This is our generation's Plan 9 from Outer Space*, this is our movie that we'll laugh at and laugh with at the same time. This is how to spend two hours of your time on a weekend, forget friends, forget exercising, forget logic, and just watch this film*, and when you've finished, thank me the only way you can, keep watching this show. Or you could deliver some shark meat to my house.* To give this movie a rating would be impossible*, this isn't a movie that is good or bad in the traditional sense, it is only a Sharknado.* You can give this movie your own rating, or you can go see the sequel. Or do both.* I hope you enjoyed this review, I sure did.*

*If Tara Reid is an actress, does that mean I'm a goat? Asking for a friend.
**Of course, I could also live to be 100...
***I get to watch people try to act like they're in a soap opera and fight at the same time.
****Minus recycling silent footage from an abandoned movie.
*****Movie Night does not support laziness or anti-logic. I do have friends. I think.
******There is no address, only Zuul.
*******For future reference, we'll say it was a 2.5 out of 5 stars. Or whatever that is multiplied by two.
********Sharknado!
*********Or do all three.
**********I don't apologize for the *'s.

Movie Night: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Review #310: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Brenda Fricker (Bird Lady), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Tim Curry (Mr. Hector), John Heard (Peter McCallister), Eddie Bracken (Mr. Duncan), Rob Schneider (Cedric), Dana Ivey (Mrs. Stone), and Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, #304 - Home Alone)

Review
In a way, I could be generous to this film given that originally I was going to review Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, but I backed out of sheer horror 15 minutes in. But then I realize, this film deserves no special treatment, not one bit. Is it horrible? I'll tell you this much: It won't continue the unintentional unlucky streak ratings in the past reviews (From 8 to 7 to 6 to 5 to 4 to 3), but it isn't as good as Home Alone either. While this film does have some of the Christmas spirit as Home Alone, my problem is that it feels too phoned in. It doesn't feel warming, it feels forced at times. The acting is decent, Culkin does a fine job, and Pesci and Stern do fine as well. The scenery sometimes looks nice, and it does have some decent laughs. But then the main glaring flaw comes in. It's a bit too...cartoonish. It may sound weird to say it, but it really isn't as funny, with one scene involving one of the bandits getting hit in the head with a brick...four times. I may be no doctor (just a reviewer), but I'm pretty sure that might hurt a whole lot more than it looks. They fall down ladders, they get slightly electrocuted (For a few seconds you can see a skeleton face as one gets electrocuted), they get hit with paint cans and more, and etcera and etcera. It goes on a bit much, and it feels weird the second time around, even though some of the gags are repeated and some are funny, it is a slightly weak sequel.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Home Alone.

Review #304: Home Alone.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Roberts Blossom (Marley), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister), John Heard (Peter McCallister), and John Candy (Gus Polinski) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)

Review
Ah yes, Home Alone. It's fitting to review it right around the Christmas corner, and also fitting to review some actors for the first time here (Gee, that sounds familiar...), which is a good thing. Mostly. And hey, a familiar person involved here as well, John Hughes. (Director and writer of #046 - The Breakfast Club, #207 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off, #249 - Sixteen Candles) So how does this film fare out? It's good...for the most part. I have to admit it is a bit warming to the Christmas spirit, and it does have some good references here and there (With one brief clip on Miracle on 34th Street...which I reviewed previously 5 days ago. Huh.), especially near the end. Ah, yes, what about Macaulay Culkin? (Trying spelling that correctly 5 times) Well, he's not bad (I'd repeat a line I use when mentioning child actors, but I think you know the near standard of child actors already.), he has some moments that give a laugh or two. But my favorite acting performances from this film are from Joe Pesci and Roberts Blossom. I like how Pesci is just so...gnarly offbeat, combined with all that happens to him. As for Blosson, he does giving a small but useful performance that contributes to the film's eager spirit. The rest of the actors do a good job, including Catherine O'Hara and...John Candy? Oh...Yes. The plot is decent, slightly plausible. The traps and comedy are allright, a bit inventive (Even though sometimes I wondered if the traps would lead to really bad injuries...) at times. After over 20 years, this film still has some legs and is enjoyable enough, especially on Christmas. Mostly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.