Showing posts with label Jon Lovitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Lovitz. Show all posts

March 31, 2026

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 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.


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

August 18, 2021

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.


August 12, 2020

A League of their Own.

Review #1500: A League of their Own.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Jimmy Dugan), Geena Davis (Dorothy "Dottie" Hinson), Lori Petty (Kit Keller), Madonna (Mae Mordabito), Rosie O'Donnell (Doris Murphy), Jon Lovitz (Ernie Capadino), David Strathairn (Ira Lowenstein), Garry Marshall (Walter Harvey), Bill Pullman (Bob Hinson), Anne Ramsay (Helen Haley), Megan Cavanagh (Marla Hooch), Freddie Simpson (Ellen Sue Gotlander), Tracy Reiner (Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (Evelyn Gardner), Renée Coleman (Alice "Skeeter" Gaspers), and Ann Cusack (Shirley Baker) Directed by Penny Marshall.

Review:
"I hadn't worked with so many women before. I thought it was something I should do. But I wasn't doing it just to do a women's picture. The problems as they're presented in the movie apply to both men and women. It's about, "Don't be ashamed of your talents." It's a universal thing."

It should figure that at least one good comedy is featured here involving the Marshall family. Older brother Garry rose from joke writer to television that morphed into developing television programs, with such shows as The Odd Couple, Happy Days, and Laverne & Shirley before going into film direction. As for Penny, she had grown from a childhood of tap dancing to small parts on film and television before being given substantial work with Garry's teleivision series, with the most prominent being her starring role on Laverne & Shirley that ran from 1976 to 1983. Encouragement from her brother led to an interest in directing (starting with an episode of Working Stiffs along with a few episodes of her own show). Her first feature Jumpin' Jack Flash (1986) was a mixed hit, but Big (1988) proved a major critical and audience hit. Marshall was inspired by a 1987 documentary she had seen about the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, which she had not heard of before. She sought out the creators of the work - Kim Wilson and Kelly Candaele (whose mother Helen Callaghan played for five years in the league) in developing the story while Babaloo Mandel and Lowell Ganz (responsible for scripts such as Splash and City Slickers) developed the screenplay.

Technically speaking, this is not a straight historical film about the AAGPBL, which went by various names that started with referring to it as softball (since the league was trying to draw on the popularity of women's softball, since both used underhand pitching) before adding and then removing professional from the title for a league that ultimately lasted from 1943 to 1954, which really did have the players play in short outfits along with tight restrictions on what they could do socially (imagine giving an athlete ettiquite classes today), with the famed Wrigley Field indeed serving as the initial tryout location in real life. True, there would be a sale by its head to an entrepenur who felt he could do just as well in operating the league as he did with advertising Philip K. Wrigley's products along with the league - Arthur Meyerhoff. Obviously the winner of the championship did not result from something as silly as a plate collision  - in fact, Racine won the title the first year over Kenosha in a sweep. The "induction" scene at the end involving the Baseball Hall of Fame is tricky - it wasn't so much an induction but just a permanent exhibit featuring players. Of course we aren't here to talk about history, the reason I had interest in the film is simple - my love of baseball, the definitive American sport for everyone, featuring actors that had to have at least some talent in baseball to participate in the film (injuries still happened from mishaps on the field, as one could expect). Where the film clicks best is in getting some laughs within its baseball trappings, which shine gradually over a film that while admittedly lengthy at just a bit over two hours is still a crowdpleaser. Hanks grabs the attention once the baseball action slides into the first quarter, and he does a pretty good job in lending tempered amusement with his natural treating of the dialogue (the crying in baseball one is the easiest to cite becuase of how catchy it is). Anyone who can lend a decent hand in acting and playing a decent game of baseball gets a nod in my book, so it figures Davis does the best job in that regard, confident and entertaining whether on the diamond or away from it that makes for spiriting/sparring moments with others like Petty or Hanks. As for Petty, she does well with the material, resoundant and interesting to see among others with brimming rivalry that she handles fine. Others in the cast prove fine with their moments, like a quirky Madonna and her pal O'Donnell or a solid bit from Lovitzl or resourcefulness from Strathairn and Marshall. It generally works best when dealing with building its baseball action with quirky lines about trying to play and live with these folks along with the rules that go with it, with the interpersonal stuff proving fine - we are talking about a fictionalized story with a real league, after all. As long as it generates interest in the true AAGPBL, it can do what it pleases. On the whole, it isn't a surprise that this proved a hit nearly three decades ago, as it proves diverting with humor and heart to generate a fine mix of fact and fiction that serves any audience well in good entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

April 5, 2013

Movie Night: North.



Review #363: North.

Cast
Elijah Wood (North), Jon Lovitz (Arthur Belt), Matthew McCurley (Winchell), Alan Arkin (Judge Buckle), Jason Alexander, Julie-Louis Dreyfus, Dan Aykroyd, Reba McEntire, John Ritter, Abe Vigoda, and Bruce Willis. Directed by Rob Reiner (#108 - This Is Spinal Tap, #180 - Stand by Me, #232 - The Princess Bride)

Review
It's sad, a cast that looks recognizable, and a director with a good record on the reviews all got together to make this. The only reason I know about this film is due to Roger Ebert and his review of the film, absolutely destroying this film. But does the film have ANY respectable thing going for it? Does it have anything that makes it any better than something like, say The Room? Well........No. Kind of expected, actually. But hey, it-No wait, it really can't be that worse. The film starts and ends...with Bruce Willis. Seriously, he pops up seven times, and not one of them makes any sense. Is he his guardian or does he really just pop up for no reason? It's sad that that this is my first review of Elijah Wood (Okay second counting 9, but first live action film.), and he actually does a decent job, not annoying. That goes to Matthew McCurley, who oddly enough reminds me of Macaulay Culkin, but he's actually worse, not having one degree of subtleness or even a smudge of actual character.  What's sadder for me is that Rob Reiner directed this, a director who's last three films reviewed here got scores of 8, 9, and 10 respectively, and he churns out a painfully unfunny film. I wondered who they made this for, who would possibly like this. Kids? Maybe, but then they would grow older and hate this film and tell others to stay away. I figured this would be easy to watch, given it's scant 88 minute run time. I was wrong. While the film does boast showing locations from Alaska to...South Dakota, it practically has a checklist of what things to make "fun" of, none of them working. What's even stranger is that this was based off a novel named "North: The Tale of a 9-Year-Old Boy Who Becomes a Free Agent and Travels the World in Search of the Perfect Parents" by Alan Zweibel, and this film was even co-produced and screenwriten by the author. Clearly, this isn't a case of "Bad novel adaptation", this is a rare case of "Bad movie coming from possible bad novel", which is extremely rare. Clearly this film was made for the sole purpose of having exotic film locations to film in more for vacationing than actual good movie making. But to close this review, I will let a definite judgement of the film come from someone else more experienced for over 45 years sum it up: "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. I hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it." Roger Ebert, everyone.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

November 7, 2012

Movie Night: The Brave Little Toaster.


Review #282: The Brave Little Toaster

Cast
Deanna Oliver (Toaster), Timothy E. Day (Blanky), Tim Stack (Lampy), Jon Lovitz (Radio), Thurl Ravenscroft (Kirby), Wayne Kaatz (Rob), Phil Hartman, and Joe Ranft (Elmo St. Peters) Directed by Jerry Rees.

Review
Well, this is a new premise. Spy agents? Seen there, done that. Battles in space? Seen it, reviewed it. A film about appliances that travel to find their old master? That's just...inventive (Okay, okay, this was based of a novel by Thomas Disch, but that's still creative either way) But you have to have a good film to fulfill the inventive premise. Does it? Yeah. By a lot. The acting is loads of fun, especially with Deanna Oliver and Jon Lovitz leading the way, with a minor, but significant performance by Phil Hartman. This is a tale of dark themes that entertains as well as frightens at the same time. 25 years have passed, and the film is gaining reputation as a hidden classic, as it should be. The film explores themes combined with brilliant animation that still works in the right socket after 25 years.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.