Showing posts with label Taylor Negron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taylor Negron. Show all posts

August 14, 2024

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.

March 31, 2014

Movie Night: Angels in the Outfield (1994).


Review #566: Angels in the Outfield (1994).

Cast
Danny Glover (George Knox), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Roger Bomman), Christopher Lloyd (Al "The Boss" Angel), Tony Danza (Mel Clark), Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy), Brenda Fricker (Maggie Nelson), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Milton Davis Jr. (J.P.), Taylor Negron (David Montagne), Tony Longo (Triscuitt Messmer), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass), Stoney Jackson (Ray Mitchell), Adrien Brody (Danny Hemmerling), Tim Conlon (Wally), and Matthew McConaughey (Ben Williams) Directed by William Dear.

Review
In honor of Opening Day, I decided to review this movie because...it was easy to find. Of all the teams that deserve to win a pennant, the Angels (Known as the California Angels in this movie, then the Anaheim Angels, now the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. And they say sports is always logical) were probably not high up on the list (Do the word Chicago Cubs come to mind?) to win one. This is a remake of the 1951 classic, and the first big change is the focus on the kids rather then the manager of the hapless team, which I guess makes it not just a copy of the original. The movie focuses more on...depressing "child drama", which I guess makes it more 90's. But it makes it less about baseball, and more of a boring drama that probably felt sappy in the 90's, which makes you want to yell "Get on with it!", over and over. At least you get some nice shots of Angels Stadium, with the Big A sign and all.

I find it funny that this was released in 1994, the year with the infamous baseball strike (Vive Le' Expos!), and canceled the playoffs. Talking about this movie is sort of boring when baseball is in the air, real baseball (though having an Opening Series, then an Opening Night before Opening Day is sort of annoying), with real meaning. The cast are sometimes entertaining (I wish Glover would get more screen time), Levitt is effective in portraying...a kid, I suppose. It's not too hard to do that (Unless you're Jake Lloyd), and Davis Jr pairs off well with Levitt. Lloyd isn't bad, but if you blink long enough, you'll forget he's there. The baseball action isn't bad (the effects are fine for the time, as I barely noticed this was made only 20 years ago), but this is a mediocre movie that is only notable because of all the rising stars in this movie (McConaughey, Levitt, and Brody), and for being a remake. I hope you have a fun Opening Day, no matter how the team(s) you root for do tonight.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

March 14, 2013

Movie Night: The Last Boy Scout.



Review #357: The Last Boy Scout.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Joe Hallenbeck), Damon Wayans (James Dix), Noble Willingham (Sheldon Marcone), Taylor Negron (Milo), Danielle Harris (Darian Hallenbeck), Halle Berry (Cory), Chelsea Field (Sarah Hallenbeck), and Bruce McGill (Mike Matthews) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun and #253 - Unstoppable)

Review
This film is like a checklist for action films in some senses. Longtime action star? Check. Second cast member who helps out the first action star? Check. 80s-90s feel? Check. Writer of a previous action film? Check. Director of previous action films? Check. But the last question is: Is it any good? Ehhh...sure. Willis tries his best given the limited range for this character, but I'll certainly say he does better than he did in Hudson Hawk. Wayans does okay, nothing really that special. The rest of the cast is okay, either being over the top or just okay.The action isn't all that bad, it has its moments. The film reminds me of Lethal Weapon, with its small bits of comedy and action sequences, both sharing the same writer, Shane Black, who coincidentally is directing Iron Man 3. It has its moments despite not really being any different from other action films, but it isn't that bad.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.