Moviephile

Now, don’t get me wrong when you see the title of this post: I love the movie A Christmas Story. It delights me on many different levels. However, I am completely perplexed as to why my generation (think people in their 20’s and 30’s, i.e. small tots when the movie was originally released) have embraced it so.

How do I know they have embraced it? Well, apart from the observation of my own eyes, this headline met my notice this morning:
‘Christmas Story’ fans celebrate film’s 25th year
Well? It turns out they’re holding a convention around the movie - 4000 people are booked to attend. Four-thousand people? I’ve seen elections that didn’t get as good a turn-out.

In case you haven’t seen A Christmas Story, it’s a Christmas story (yeah, yeah) based on the short, humorous essays of author Jean Shepherd. Jean Shepherd actually narrates the film, discussing the incidents therein. It’s all about “Little Ralphie” and his desire for the Christmas present of a “Red Ryder BB-gun” - and the various other Christmas adventures he encounters. It takes place in the 1940’s. It’s obviously a rather low-budget film, but features excellent performances.

Okay, this is what perplexes me. Why did my generation (people born in the mid seventies to mid eighties) embrace this movie about a childhood so utterly removed from our own? 1940’s? That’s like my grandparents’ era. My generation barely even likes to watch movies made before 2001. So why have we whole-heartedly embraced this movie about a Christmastime that is so utterly foreign to anything we might have experienced?

I don’t know. Perhaps it’s simply the fact that it is so foreign… Kind of a “The Christmas That Never Was” kind of thing. Or maybe it’s our idealized version of what Christmas should be. Or maybe it’s simply the fact that there has been a near-complete dearth of good Christmas movies during the past twenty-to-thirty years. (Disagree? Think about it - the only “good” Christmas movies I can name that came out during that time are this, Ernest Saves Christmas and Elf . That’s barely one a decade! Not even to mention the fact that some people would debate whether those two can be classified as “good”!)

I don’t know. I still don’t know.

I know this is a bad note to end on… but I just don’t know why this movie has been so embraced by my generation. Any thoughts? Watch it and let me know.

I don’t know how it originally came up in conversation, or what train of thought led to me remembering the conversation… but I recently recalled an episode where I was relating to my husband how I had watched the Uncle Buck sitcom (spin-off of the film Uncle Buck) when I was a child. Mr. Hall, in his inimitable fashion, claimed that I was making it up and that no such sitcom existed (especially after I related that the concept of the show was that the parents of the children in the film were killed in a car accident, hence Uncle Buck moving in as their full-time caretaker).

I seem to have a habit of having watched shows that no one else in the world remembers. However, I know this show existed, so (inspired by whatever train of thought had recalled the conversation to me in the first place) the other evening I did a search on YouTube for the opening credits of the show.

I found them.

(Please note, after the opening of Uncle Buck are the opening credits for several other shows as well: apparently the gentleman who posted this posted the opening credits for all the “1990 TV Show openings” that he could find… enough to fill up ten parts. Thank you, sir, whoever you are! You have provided me with hours of nostalgic entertainment - and also reminded me of “back in the day” when there was actually an entire night of television every week that I looked forward to watching.)

Anyway, the Uncle Buck TV show existed, and I am vindicated and glad.  Well, kind of glad. I recalled the show rather fondly, yet this opening looks incredibly, horribly, cheesy.

Not to mention that the premise of the show (that the children’s parents have died in a car accident) is rather horrible, and even the opening of the show presumes that none of the main characters learned any lessons from the incidents of the film.

The film? Well, in case you haven’t seen that, Uncle Buck is a classic John Hughes film, and a tour-de-force for John Candy. In it, the parents of a dysfunctional (but stuck-up) family are called away for an emergency, and their low-class brother (Uncle Buck) comes to watch the kids. The teenage daughter is going through a “difficult” phase and they give each other hell; it’s a painful and yet hilarious movie, and very heartfelt. Mr. Hall and I re-watched it last night and enjoyed it thoroughly.

The TV show, however, looks as though it was a rather poor imitation of the latter. I was rather surprised to read the Wikipedia entry and discover that, no, it was not canceled because it was awful; it was canceled because it lost viewers after being moved from Monday nights to Friday. Oh well! I can’t really slam it because I watched (and, as I recall, enjoyed it) at the time. However, I was about eleven then, and can’t speak for my then sense of taste. (If it ever comes out on DVD I’ll have to pick it up and tell you how it fares nowadays…)

I don’t mind saying that I was very excited going into Quantum of Solace. As I’d already mentioned, Mr. Hall and I enjoyed Casino Royale quite a bit - it only made sense that we would enjoy this one just as much.

Unfortunately, it just didn’t work out that way.

From the very start, the movie didn’t grab me the way the first one did. The movie begins with a chase sequence in cars which is nowhere as interesting as the on-foot chase sequence that begins the first movie - and for another thing, the chase was shot and edited together so poorly that I spent the first ten minutes of the movie annoyed because I could not, for the life of me, figure out what was going on or who was chasing what. The title sequence was rather drab and uninteresting, and the theme song was not appealing to the ear.

There were three chase sequences in the first twenty minutes or so of the movie, and not one of them was interesting to watch. This film contained far too many “topical” references which may have been good five months ago but are already lacking in punch: remarks about the value of the dollar or the expensiveness of oil are already inconsistent with reality. The story was rather inconsistent about Bond’s character - is he hard and cynical or secretly caring? I’m not blaming Daniel Craig (even though a little bit of facial expression on his part may have assisted matters) - I blame the director and the writer. Why did he have no facial expression? Because they gave him nowhere to go! And what exactly gave him solace in the end? I have yet to quite figure that one out.

The bad guy didn’t work. Is he a cheap, smarmy little goblin who would run away from a fight - or is he a smart, intelligent con-man, willing to go hand-to-hand with master killer Bond? He was inconsistently characterized (which I also blame the writer and director for, not the actor).

The movie was muddled, inconsistent and kind of boring - not to mention visually drab and uninteresting. At absolute best, forgiving a whole lot and mostly for the sake of its predecessor, I give it a B-. But my gut reaction is to give it a C.

Probably the best thing that can be said about it was that it wasn’t very long, so at least you don’t have to spend too long in confusion and boredom.

My recommendation: don’t waste your money on this one. If you really want to see it, wait until it comes out on DVD and then put it in your Netflix list. That would probably be the best way to see it.

Time to haul out your long red robes and glowing orbs: it’s Life Day, kiddies, better known as the anniversary of the first (and only) broadcast of the little known Star Wars Holiday Special. Today has special significance, though, because not only is this the anniversary - today is the 30th anniversary.

In case you don’t know what this is: the Star Wars Holiday Special was released during the holiday season following the release of the first (the REAL first) Star Wars movie. It was apparently written by a handful of people who had never seen Star Wars and simply heard that it was “some kids’ movie about robots and crap”… and they went on from there, styling a semi-sci-fi themed variety special, featuring popular comedians and singers of the day - including Art Carney, Bea Arthur, Harvey Korman, and so on.  It has something of a plot: Han Solo is trying to get Chewbacca back to Chewie’s home planet for “Life Day” (Wookie Chirstmas, apparently). Surprisingly, the original cast of Star Wars also appears in this during the “plotted” segments - including an overly eye-makeup’d Mark Hammil, an obviously stoned Carrie Fisher, and a very angry looking Harrison Ford.

(Yes, this really exists. When I first heard about it six years ago, I didn’t believe the person who was telling me about it. I thought it was made up. I thought, “How could they possibly have made something like that? That’s ridiculous!” What a poor, sad, innocent fool I was.)

You know, I’ve seen some bad movies in my time. I’ve seen some real bad movies. But this is possibly the worst thing I’ve ever seen. The first time I watched it I immediately made up my mind that it was going on my list of films NEVER TO EVER WATCH AGAIN. Ever. (Along with The Man With Two Brains, Modern Problems and Nothing But Trouble.)

However, I have watched it again - probably six or seven times, maybe more - partly because of its truly extraordinary badness, but also because it makes you feel like part of a select club when you watch it. There is no such thing as an “official copy” of this film. It is so bad that George Lucas had the master copy destroyed; it only exists in bootleg form from copies taped off TV when it was broadcast. Mr. Lucas has been quoted as saying, “If I had the time, and a hammer, I would track down every bootleg copy and smash it.”

And if you’ve seen Episode One, you know it takes a lot to embarrass George Lucas.

Sadly for Mr. Lucas, it would be nigh-on impossible to track down every copy now. Happily for us true-believers, you can usually find one on Ebay, and can watch most of the special in 10-minute chunks on YouTube. (And, for you fans of MST3k, you can download a commentary for this film by Rifftrax. It is absolutely hilarious, although due to the fact that all the bootlegs are somewhat different, it’s somewhat difficult to keep it sync’d up to the film. Totally worth it, though. We watched it last Christmas and laughed ourselves silly.)

So, in honor of Life Day, track yourself down a copy of The Star Wars Holiday Special. Become a part of this exclusive club. However, I’m warning you… at times your mouth is going to be hanging open in pure horror - and I am so not kidding about that.

While we’re on the topic of movies you should probably see, you should probably see the film UHF if you haven’t already. This is what is generally considered a “cult” movie - a film that didn’t do terribly well when it was released but has gathered a devoted following in the ensuing years.

UHF is about a guy named George who is more or less a failure at life because of his contstant daydreaming (a-la Walter Mitty). Unexpectedly, George is given the chance to run a small UHF station by his uncle - and the hilarity ensues. This film starred and was written by music-comedy-sensation Weird Al Yankovic.

The reason this film didn’t do well is two-fold. The first problem it had was that it was released at a time when it had to compete against Honey, I Shrunk The Kids, Lethal Weapon 2, Batman, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (i.e. its competition were huge summer blockbusters).

The second part of the reason why it didn’t enjoy more success is that I think a lot of people just didn’t know what to make of it. The humor in this movie is a combination of the bizarre, the outright childish and goofy, and clever parody which are the hallmark of Weird Al’s comedy style. It’s very reminiscent of the very early issues of Mad Magazine (which Al has mentioned were a comedy influence). And I have a feeling that a lot of the people who went to see this movie didn’t get it, thought it was weird and dumb and thumbed their noses at it.

In fact, I can state categorically that this is how some people reacted. My parents rented that movie on VHS shortly after it came out; they were perplexed and disgusted with it and returned it hastily. I (still in the single-digit age group at the time) had no say in the matter - I only remember being somewhat scared of some claymation effects at the end of the movie.

So why am I recommending this movie to you? Because, like a fine wine, this film seems to have gotten better with age. I was reintroduced to it by my husband when we were dating, and I was surprised (and delighted) to discover that it was hilarious. Oddly, when my parents watched it with us, they liked it too. Perhaps it was us that got better with age… Or perhaps it was simply the fact that our sensibilities had been hardened by the 1990’s and we no longer found claymation frightening.

However, I’m getting off my point, which was that despite its unenthusiastic reception by the public at its release, UHF actually did quite well on tape; its audience, no longer distracted with Indiana Jones or Batman, finally found it. It was popular enough that when it was finally released on DVD, it was decked out with all sorts of extras including a commentary by Weird Al. A commentary, I might add, which is so hilarious that I think I have watched the film with commentary just as much as I’ve watched it without. Yes, it’s that good.

So, anyway, put this movie in your queue and prepare yourself for smart, dumb, goofy bizarreness - and a bit of Weird Al’s signature music. Oh, by the way, in case you’re wondering why I called this film”Oft-Maligned” - it’s because of what I mentioned earlier about people not understanding and thumbing their noses. It’s amazing how, if something is funny, people will simply dismiss it. Mr. Yankovic is a very intelligent man and a lot of thought goes into the works that he produces; just because something features “dumb” humor doesn’t make it dumb.

So watch UHF . And then tell me what you think of it. I’d really like to hear from somebody who doesn’t like it so that I can figure out what is the dividing line between someone who likes Weird Al’s comedy and somebody who hates it.

We have watched two more James Bond movies since I last wrote, and no, we did not go to see the new one today: Mr. Hall had to work all day, and I certainly am not going to go to the movies by myself. (That would just be weird.) So we won’t be seeing that one until Tuesday.

However, rather than write yet another blog about James Bond movies (if you don’t care about them you’re probably getting pretty tired of that at this point) I decided I would recommend a movie for you today.

If you haven’t seen it, a movie you should put in your rental queue is this: Time Bandits. This movie was penned by Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin (of Monty Python fame); it is the story of an adventurous boy stuck in a drab, boring British home, and how he gets caught up in an adventure that drags him through time and space to a final climactic battle between good and evil. It’s sci-fi, it’s fantasy, it’s adventure, it’s comedy, it’s historical, it’s mythic.

And it’s funny. And has special appearances by John Cleese, Sean Connery, Michael Palin (surprise!) - as well as David Warner as Evil. Can you ask for a better recommendation than that? No, I don’t think that you can.

For the past two nights, Mr. Hall and I have been watching James Bond movies. We’re getting in the mood for the upcoming film. I imagine that, tomorrow night, we’ll finally watch Casino Royale so that it will be fresh in our minds for Friday (or Tuesday, depending on when we see it).

Monday night, we watched Diamonds Are Forever. This is a somewhat peculiar James Bond movie in that it’s sandwiched between the first non-Sean Connery Bond film (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) and the first Roger Moore Bond film. Mr. Bond wasn’t looking as young as he used to be, as Sean Connery had aged a lot in the years he’d been doing Bond (which was odd, since - after this aging spurt - he then stopped aging from about 1985-2005) - and the sleazy seventies had begun, in which Mr. Bond’s dinner-jacketed suavity looked out-of-place. (When I think of the 70’s, the first things that spring to mind are “wacka-chicka” music and people with seriously oily skin. The 1970’s were possibly one of the oiliest decades of all time…)

There are several bizarre elements in this film. It features Mr. Bond’s first (and only?) blatantly homosexual villains, Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd (who hold hands after killing a man with a scorpion); a cross-dressing Blofeld; and a special appearance by the sausage king, Mr. Jimmy Dean himself, as a scientist millionaire. It was a kind of an odd note for Sean Connery to go out on, which may have been why he agreed to be in the only official “unofficial”James Bond movie, Never Say Never Again, in the 1980’s. IGN apparently voted Diamonds are Forever as the worst James Bond movie, which is grossly unfair. Hands down, that honor must go to the truly appalling The World is Not Enough.

Last night, Mr. Hall and I watched the first of the two Timothy Dalton Bond films, The Living Daylights. It’s not the best James Bond movie ever, but it’s enjoyable. The worst criticisms I have are that it is a little slow in spots and that — due to the eighties and all that feminist “You can’t have a woman as a sex symbol! She has to be strong, independent, intelligent…” stuff that was going on at the time — the poor Bond girl has to wear the frumpiest clothing ever. I mean, it’s not just that they didn’t dress her “sexy” - it’s that they dressed her in outright unnattractive clothing. It’s almost embarrassing how unnattractive her clothes were; they were baggy, shapeless, and unflattering. And it’s not just that it was the eighties and everything was ugly back then. This is just plain ugly clothing, regardless of era. See that revealing night gown in the poster at the left? NOTHING LIKE THAT in the film. Now, let me emphasize that I’m not advocating women being used as sex symbols: in fact, I’d much rather that the Bond girls not walk around in skimpy, revealing clothing. But that doesn’t mean they have to be dressed like grandmas. (No offense, grandmas.) An outfit can be flattering without being revealing.

But to get back to the real point - The Living Daylights was a decent movie. Of course, I think Mr. Dalton’s second (and last) Bond film, License to Kill, was better (despite some odd elements which I will discuss at a later time).

It remains to be seen if Mr. Hall and I will watch another James Bond movie tonight - although it’s distinctly possible.

After the Summer of 1000 Hits, things have wound down to the extent that there is only one more movie coming out in 2008 that Mr. Hall and I are interested in seeing. And that would be Quantum of Solace, the new James Bond movie.

We’ve been looking forward to this movie expectantly ever since the closing scene of Casino Royale. I had mixed feelings about that film to begin with; for one thing, Mr. Hall has made me a fan of the series, so it had some seriously big shoes to fill. For another thing, I knew that it was essentially “James Bond Begins”, retelling the tale of the character from the start (and I’m about tired of “Begins” movies - beginning with Batman Begins. There have been far too many of those “We’re going to re-tell the story of so-and-so!” movies lately. I am downright disgusted to hear about the Star Trek “Begins” movie coming out… But I’ll rant about the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood another day.)

Plus, I was one of the many people who took one look at Daniel Craig and said, “He doesn’t look like James Bond.” In my mind, James Bond is a distinguished, upper-crusty kind of gentleman… Daniel Craig (no offense) looks more like a thug. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with looking like a thug, or that looking like a thug is unnattractive (in all cases)… I’m just saying, he didn’t fit my idea of James Bond. Rough around the edges. An obvious “tough guy” type.

And in all truth, I was not convinced that he was the right choice when I was watching Casino Royale. I had my doubts throughout the entire movie… UNTIL THE FINAL SCENE. I won’t say what happened lest ye haven’t seen it, but let’s just say, he convinced me. Mr. Hall and I walked out of that movie chirruping with delight at two hours well-spent.

And now we have Quantum of Solace. As I said, we’ve been eagerly anticipating this movie. The only problem is that it’s gotten rather mixed reviews so far. And the theme song (which has been previewed) is rather unmelodious. But - until we’ve seen it - we can’t make any judgments. I suppose the big test is this Friday when the film finally comes out. I was hoping to see it that day, but mine and Mr. Halls schedules don’t appear to be matching up - so we may see it next Tuesday instead.

As soon as I’ve had a chance to see this one, you can expect a full review - and to find out whether it lived up to the expectations or not!

As a holiday, I love Thanksgiving: what’s better than a day entirely focused on counting your blessings and food? However, the day has its problems: one of which is that there just aren’t enough Thanksgiving movies.

How many can you think of off-hand? Okay. Let me count. 1… maybe 2, wait, no…. uh….

I can think of ONE Thanksgiving movie.

There are movies that feature Thanksgiving that I am not counting. Holiday Inn features Thanksgiving prominently at one point - but it also features lots of holidays prominently. It’s Holiday Inn, for pete’s sake. Miracle on 34th Street begins on Thanksgiving - but the focus of the film is Christmas.

There’s A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving, but I’m not counting that as a movie because it was made for TV and it’s only 25 minutes long. Mr. Hall likes to watch Nightmare Before Christmas at Thanksgiving, because it (for him) marks the transition from Halloween Time to Christmas Time - but it must be said, it is not about Thanksgiving.

Which brings us back to the ONE Thanksgiving movie: Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

I’ll discuss this movie later at some point when I can do it justice - possibly around Thanksgiving (it would make sense). But seriously! This is the only movie I can think of that is focused on Thanksgiving! You’d think that as a national “we don’t have to go to work” holiday it would at least out-strip Groundhog Day for movies (I mean, if you get right down to it, Groundhog Day is about as important as “Talk Like A Pirate Day” to your average citizen), but as far as I can see… it doesn’t.

If you know of another Thanksgiving movie - let me know. Because this is just ridiculous.

Okay - one FINAL post on the Mystery Science Theater 3000 set that Mr. Hall bought me. (Yes, yes, I know I’ve gone rather over-board discussing this thing… but I really like it, okay? Also - since I have only discussed the first two movies - I felt rather beholden to mention the last two).

The last two films in the set were, as I mentioned,  First Spaceship on Venus and Laserblast; neither of which I had seen before (as MST3K episodes).

First Spaceship on Venus wasn’t the best MST3k episode I’ve ever seen. It was a bit slow in spots, and as a result the movie was hard to watch. (It’s a bizarrely constructed East German 1950’s Sci-Fi piece; admittedly, it would have been hard to watch regardless). It was from Joel’s second season, and I don’t think he’d quite hit his stride yet - which is, of course, to say that the writers hadn’t hit their stride yet. The jokes still had too much space in between them. That said, there were several really good laughs, so it wasn’t a total loss.

I had already seen Laserblast in its un-MSTied form (ouch).  It’s a movie about a neglected teen (I assume he’s a teen) who finds an alien weapon in the desert and then kind of turns into an alien and goes around shooting things. It’s a perfect film for mocking with a group of friends. Which is, indeed, what I did with it when I watched the un-MSTied version… and which is also what makes it perfect MST3k fodder. Mike, Tom and Crow tore it up - and it was hilarious. Interestingly, this was the last episode of MST3k for Comedy Central, which at the time was ostensibly the end of the series… So the host segment ends with Mike, Tom and Crow becoming beings of pure energy and going off to live at the edge of the universe, while Dr. Forrester becomes a space baby and gets raised again by his horrible mother, Pearl. I thought it might be kind of a sad ending, but it worked out pretty amusingly. The real last episode of MST3k was a lot more traumatic for me; there’s a moment where it seems as if they have all died. (I don’t want to spoil it for you, so I won’t say what really happened.) Having all the characters die on the last episode of a beloved television show is kind of rough; yes, I’m looking at you, Dinosaurs!

So, to sum up: after having reviewed all the films and special features, I would still say that this is an excellent MST3k set. It’s one weak spot is the film First Spaceship on Venus, which wasn’t even that bad; and regardless was far outweighed by the excellent riffs on the other three films.

And that’s all I have to say about that!