Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

One of my favorite movies from my childhood was “The Monster Squad,” a 1987 horror-comedy/kid-adventure with a neat premise—think of the original Movie Monsters vs. the Little Rascals, and you have “The Monster Squad.”

I loved watching this movie when I was a kid. It was entertaining, had a neat story idea that came through, and couldn’t find a single flaw. Watching it now, I notice differences between the movie I loved as a kid and the movie I’m watching now. But I still enjoyed the movie. It’s not the classic I remember, but it’s still an entertaining watch.

The Monster Squad in the title are a group of savvy middle-school outcasts who form their own club in a treehouse, where they talk mainly about their favorite subject—monsters. They draw pictures of “spider with human head” in science class, have discussions of whether or not Wolfman can drive a car, and in initiating a new member, they ask questions like how to kill a vampire and “What’s the second way to kill a werewolf?”

But meanwhile, Count Dracula (Duncan Regehr) is alive and plans to rule the world. To his aid are a wolf-man, a two-thousand-year-old mummy that just gets up and walks away from a museum, and a Gillman who…is just there. There’s a lot of story to go with this plan, but I’ll try and explain. But don’t ask how all of these Movie Monsters got associated with it because it’s never really explained. That’s not the main concern and besides, who cares anyway? They’re all here. It’s movie magic.

Anyway, there’s a magical ancient amulet that maintains some sort of balance between good and evil in the world, which can shift if the amulet is destroyed. It’s indestructible, but every one hundred years, the amulet can become vulnerable until a young virgin can read a magic spell that will maintain the amulet’s power and the balance between good and evil. Dracula hopes to find the amulet and destroy it so he can rule the world.

OK…I don’t quite get it either. I didn’t think about it too much when I was a kid, but I can’t ignore it anymore. This story is much more complicated than any other with a magical element. The amulet is simply there as a McGuffin—a story catalyst to get the story where it needs to be.

Anyway, the monster club finds out about the appearance of Dracula in their hometown, and following an old diary with sinister information, they find out what’s going on and set out to find the amulet and fight the monsters, thus the appointed name the Monster Squad.

Maybe the kids in this movie are not the Little Rascals, as I metaphorically described—even though these kids hang out in a clubhouse and have a cute little dog with them, they are also slightly older than the Rascals, are modernized for their time, and cuss because they think it’s cool.

Actually, the kids’ constant swearing, and some occasions of intense violence, is the reason this movie was granted a PG-13 rating. Because of this, audiences didn’t know why they should see this movie—a lot of people thought it would be too scary for kids, while others thought the exact opposite; thinking this was a kids’ film. Therefore, the film did very poorly at the box office. But it did gain a strong cult following by people who discovered it on TV and practically demanded a 20-year anniversary special edition DVD, which they got.

What makes this film so special? Well, for all the “80s cheese” movies that people hold in regard, “The Monster Squad” does have a great deal of production value. Director Fred Dekker and his crew used every ounce of their budget to give the movie an epic feel. You can tell right away in a well-crafted opening sequence set in the 1800s, when Abraham Van Helsing (yes, the scientist from “Dracula”) and his band of freedom fighters storm Dracula’s castle to kill monsters. The interior-castle set is incredible, as it incredibly resembles Dracula’s castle in the original 1931 “Dracula” film. And the creature effects—skeletons that come to life and grab people—are legitimately frightening.

You could argue that this opening sequence is better than the movie itself, but let’s just keep going.

The special effects are quite good, particularly the creature makeup on creatures like Frankenstein’s Monster and the Gillman. Although, the Wolfman isn’t as successful—there are times when you can tell the actor is wearing an obvious mask. (But the wolf-paws look realistic.)

Everyone remembers three particular members of the Monster Squad—the leader Sean (Andre Gower) for his wits and bravery, rebel Rudy (Ryan Lambert) for his bad-boy style and the lion’s share of the monster slaying, and Horace (a.k.a. Fat Kid—well, at least he’s supposed to be a stereotype) for not only playing a stereotypical fat kid (I mean, why else would he carry around a slice of pizza if he wasn’t use its garlic to burn Dracula’s face?), but also for delivering the film’s infamous line after kicking Wolfman in his personal area—his reaction in shocking bewilderment, “Wolfman’s got nards!”

The climax of the movie—in which the kids and monsters battle each other at the town square—is pretty exciting, with one showdown after another without getting boring. How can you not love the part where Horace kills the Gillman with a shotgun?

Duncan Regehr has fun with the role of Dracula, and there’s also Tom Noonan as Frankenstein’s Monster. Dracula brings “Frank” back to life and orders him to find the kids and kill them. But the Monster instead turns on Dracula and winds up befriending the Squad, particularly Sean’s innocent, cute little sister Phoebe (Ashley Bank).

So what about “The Monster Squad” doesn’t hold up very well for me? For starters, the story is all over the place and is a little too much for a film that runs about 82 minutes. In fact, parts of the movie just seem rushed at times. We don’t get enough of this likable Frankenstein character (though he does have an awesome final moment) and the subplot involving Sean’s bickering parents (Stephen Macht and Mary Ellen Trainor) is overlooked once the monsters appear. Oh, and there’s also a recluse simply known as Scary German Guy (Leonardo Cimino) who, in one shot, shows an interesting background that we’d like to get to know about, but no.

Actually, that’s a problem with “The Monster Squad”—for a movie with a short running time as this, it’s pretty overstuffed. Additional stuff with Sean’s police officer father and his comedic partner (Stan Shaw), the human form of the wolf-man (Jonathan Gries, simply credited as “Desperate Man”), and the school bullies (Jason Hervey and Adam Carl) are glanced over and then forgotten without much of a payoff, with the possible exception of the bullies who witness Horace killing the Gillman and respect him for it.

Also, there are quite a few nonsensical moments. For example, when Sean reads a message from someone named “Alucard,” how does he automatically know that the name is an anagram for Dracula? And there’s a scene in which the Squad’s youngest boy—Eugene (Michael Faustino)—tells his father that the Mummy is in his bedroom closet, which he certainly is. Why in the world is the Mummy in a little boy’s closet?

And while Sean, Rudy, and Horace are all entertaining while portraying their stereotypes, the other members of the Squad aren’t as much. One of them—Patrick (Robby Kiger)—is simply on hand so he can have a sexy sister that likes to undress in front of a window that the boys can see with their zoom-lens camera from their treehouse. Oh, and he makes calling cards with just “MONSTER SQUAD” printed on them—no number, address, or anything. Who let this kid in? I can also ask the same about Eugene. Eugene is in this monster club and yet he closes his eyes whenever he gets scared. He doesn’t even do anything in the actual battle except scream and close his eyes at crucial points. (Oh, and he complains constantly, “Mummy came in my house.”) His cute beagle Pete is pointless as well.

I mentioned “80s cheese” before. That’s how you can explain other parts of the movie, like the central montage of the kids getting ready for battle while a cheesy 80s rock song by Michael Sembello plays. Actually, this montage is kind of fun—it shows how the kids are able to get their hands on wooden stakes and also create silver bullets. And the song isn’t that bad either. But there’s another song by Sembello that is just terrible—it’s a rap song (that’s right—a rap song) called “Monster Squad.” It’s one of the cheesiest things you’ll ever come across.

Did I leave anything out? Boy, I hope not, because this review is getting pretty long.

The bottom line is that, despite its flaws, “The Monster Squad” is still as entertaining as I remember it. The filmmaking is nice, there are a good dose of amusing moments, the monsters are entertaining, the kids are likable, and the final battle is quite fun. And yes, Horace, Wolfman still has nards.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I shouldn’t be too surprised that Kenneth Branagh, the great cinematic adaptor of Shakespearean work, directed a movie based on a Marvel comic book series. I mean, after all, every director likes to try new territory. I mean, look at Ang Lee—he made a “Hulk” picture and then followed it up with “Brokeback Mountain.” And let’s not beat around the bush—Branagh’s “Thor” is a fast, energetic entertainment. It’s well-made, exciting, and features a charismatic new superhero brought from the page to the screen.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) isn’t your ordinary superhero (boy, that’s a phrase I thought I’d never use). In the land of Asgard, within the “nine realms,” he’s the arrogant god of thunder with an all-powerful hammer. Ascending to the throne by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins), his ceremony is interrupted by otherworldly beasts known as the Frost Giants of Jotunheim, who are at war with Asgard. In anger, Thor attempts to damage the land of the Frost Giants, which only risks further war.

This nearly-half-hour-long prologue is undoubtedly silly in its storytelling, but it is necessary in developing the continuing story, and it includes the expository rules-and-regulations of this world for us to watch out for. And I have to admit, the battle between Thor and his friends vs. the Frost Giants is well-edited and very riveting.

But the movie really picks up at the half-hour mark, as Thor is ridden of his godly powers (and his hammer) and banished to modern-day Earth for his egotism. There, he meets scientists Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard), and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings).

This is the most interesting part of the movie because it shows Thor without his powers and having to deal with being in a strange world as a human. At first, he isn’t so accepting of it—and why wouldn’t he, after going from hero to zero? But what gives the story a breath of fresh air is that this arrogant, stubborn barbarian is willing to learn how to adapt. For example, he has a drink of coffee, he enjoys the drink, and he smashes the cup and yells for more. Jane tells him he can’t do that and Thor just accepts that.

Anyway, there’s a conflict back home involving the Frost Giants seeking to kill Odin, and Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) rising to power after Odin is suddenly in godly traction, I should say. (By the way, am I the only one confused that gods just slip into comas? But I digress.) And then there’s the matter of Thor seeking to gain his power pack, and his hammer held by the government who are trying to figure out what this is. And wouldn’t you know it—it’s the S.H.I.E.L.D. group that’s holding it. Who else would it be, right? Luckily, that annoying, ominous, eye-patch sporting Samuel L. Jackson only waits until after the end credits, for yet another setup to the upcoming superhero epic “The Avengers.”

The stuff with the Frost Giants and the war between Asgard and Jotunheim is pretty clustered and clumsily handled. While it does make some neatly-paced action scenes, I’m not sure I understand what’s really at stake. We start out believing that these Frost Giants are the bad guys and yet Thor grows to try and stop Loki from forming an annihilation of their land. I don’t know, maybe he’s figured out that all life is sacred.

Chris Hemsworth portrays an appealing Thor. He’s strong, but has a heart of gold. He’s arrogant, but knows when to focus. He’s wild at times, but he tries to make something out of himself. Hemsworth brings Thor more dimensions than you’d expect, especially if the character is going to change from a god to a mortal and having to learn from it.

The three people befriended by Thor are also well-cast. Natalie Portman is lovely and likable as always, although I probably could have used a stronger love story between her character and Thor. As it is, it seems rushed and forced, but it’s not Portman’s fault. Stellan Skarsgard is outstanding as Erik, who does more than deliver helpful advice. On hand for comic relief is Kat Dennings as deadpan cynic Darcy, who has some of the funniest lines in the movie (one of which is, “You know, for a crazy homeless guy, he’s pretty cut”).

Now, I want to talk about Thor’s brother Loki, who becomes the villain. When I first saw this movie, I didn’t find Loki to be a charismatic, or even interesting, arch-nemesis for Thor. Right from the get-go, I thought he might as well be walking around with a thought bubble hovering over his head, saying “Oh you’re so dead.” Don’t tell me I didn’t get it. I got it, alright? It’s the Shakespearean element of the jealous brother looking to be rid of his more skillful older brother so he can gain no more attention than him, and so he goes mad with power and decides to further declare war over these Nine Realms. And particularly, he’ll destroy the Earth. Of course.

The truth is, watching the film a second time, I see that I may have missed a few things with this character and realizing that, I can see the effective buildup to this character. You totally buy why he would do these things. But once he goes gain power, he’s still as disappointingly adequate as I remember.

So even if the villain isn’t that charismatic, the screenplay can be a little rushed, and elements from this other-world can seem ridiculous, “Thor” is still a grand production, as you’d expect from Kenneth Branagh’s films. You can tell that Branagh, and designer Bo Welch, went all out to make everything creatively huge—it’s more than notable that the sets and costumes really stand out. And Thor himself is how I imagined him to be, with credits going to his costume design and of course the performance by Chris Hemsworth. Add an interesting fish-out-of-water tale featuring Thor adapting to Earth, as well as some Shakespearean elements to be found here, and “Thor” is an entertaining superhero tale.

NOTE: I really hate to have to say that about Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury, since he’s one of my favorite actors. But his coolness has worn out its welcome after the second time he’s brought up the Avengers project.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” is the seventh entry in the “Nightmare on Elm Street” horror movie franchise, with director Wes Craven back in the saddle after the original film ten years before. I liked Craven’s original film, and I thought the five sequels that followed were dull, standard slasher films (though with a few good twists thrown in, particularly in the third movie), all of which Craven had little to do with. But Craven has returned for a seventh film, and it’s the best one in the series.

The “Nightmare on Elm Street” franchise has been popular mainly because of its villain—the serial killer with knives for fingers and a dark comic personality: Freddy Krueger. But wait. If Freddy died in the sixth film—actually entitled “Freddy’s Dead”—then how can he come back for a seventh film? It’s the same reason killer Jason Voorhees came back for more “Friday the 13^th” sequels. The public wants him back, so the character keeps coming back. Horror movie monsters can transform into cultural phenomenon to the point where maybe they create their own existence in reality that forces the writers to create a new script for them.

That’s a crazy idea, but “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” is centered around that idea. What if Freddy wasn’t a horror movie character, but more like a real thing? What if he didn’t like, as much as his fans, the idea that his character was killed off? This movie plays with that concept and has a lot of fun with it. The result is a quite intriguing horror film.

“Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” brings Freddy back to life, as he haunts the nightmares of a few people who worked on the original “Nightmare on Elm Street” film. Most notably troubled is Heather Langenkamp, who played the heroine Nancy in the original film. She gets strange, harassing phone calls from a caller who sings the haunting “Freddy” song (the one that goes, “1, 2, Freddy’s coming for you”). Her son Dylan (Miko Hughes) has an odd habit of sleepwalking and murmuring, “Never sleep again,” while also putting himself in great danger. Robert Englund, who played Freddy in the films, is having nightmares and painting weird pictures.

And Wes Craven himself has been having nightmares too, and is writing a script for a new screenplay. When things start to go very wrong, and Heather actually starts to believe that Freddy might be alive in the real world, she asks Craven about what he’s writing. It turns out that what he’s writing becomes real in Heather’s life. Craven believes that the only way to stop Freddy is to make another movie, and because most of the story involves Heather’s original character, Heather is the focus. This means she has to fight Freddy as Nancy again. Only this time, there’s no shouting of “cut” for reshoots. This is real, or as real as you can be in a dream where if you die in the dream, you die for real.

By the way, Heather is asked to play Nancy for another “Nightmare” movie even though she clearly died in the third movie. But if they can bring Freddy back to life, I don’t see why Nancy doesn’t have a fighting chance.

The idea of “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” being a horror film within a horror film is unusual, but I’ll take this concept over just another standard story of Freddy just invading people’s dreams. While “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” follows the “Nightmare on Elm Street” tradition in that it plays with visions of fantasy and reality (in fact, the contrasts grow kind of tiresome after a while, because they seem kind of obvious at times), and while it also keeps the blood and gore consistently horrifying (and the special effects are top-notch), it’s mainly focused on the people who know the tradition by heart because they love to watch horror films. What effect do they have on these people? This includes the actors, who are pleased by the cult following that the series has brought onto the public, and then are horrified by the evil force that the series has generated upon them as well. This affects their own lives.

Having these people play themselves (more or less) in this movie is quite fun. Heather Langenkamp actually shows more dimensions as herself than as Nancy in the original film. She had to, if she was to remain credible. She’s game as an actress who appreciates the fame, but concerned about why she is famous. Wes Craven is terrific, playing himself as a bright filmmaker who knows more about what’s happening and keeps most details a mystery in order to keep the “story” going. Bob Shaye, head of New Line Cinema (which released this film and the predecessors), is gamely satirical as himself stating reasons why there should be a new movie—it’s what the fans want. Robert Englund seems like a fun guy to talk to, despite his reputation as a movie monster. And John Saxon, who played the father in the original film, has a chance to be Heather’s “counselor” in reality when things go wrong and Heather warns him about Freddy.

There are darkly comic moments in “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare,’ such as in an early scene where we see the making of a “Nightmare” movie, with an animatronic Freddy glove and it comes to life and slaughters the special-effects guys (that’s a dream sequence, foreshadowing events in the movie—very clever). But also, there are some genuinely frightening moments in “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare.” Most of them have to do with Heather’s young son Dylan, who is constantly put in harm’s way. One scene has him on top of a jungle gym, possibly being manipulated by Freddy, and about to fall as Heather races to get to him. Then there’s the scene in which Dylan is sleepwalking and makes his across a freeway, nearly being hit by cars and trucks. These are done very well; they’re sincerely creepy moments.

Freddy Krueger himself has updated. While he’s best known as a twisted killer with many one-liners that give him a dark-comedic personality, he actually comes across as legitimately frightening here. He’s more threatening and less comical. He’s more of a monster here than in the other movies. Also, and here’s a nice touch, his appearance is somewhat different than in the films—not too much, but you can tell the difference between the movie-Freddy and the movie-within-the-movie-(reality)-Freddy. Robert Englund is game too and has fun contrasting his actor role with his Freddy role. You can take the campiness of his original Freddy; this is the more frightening Freddy here.

Oh, and I should also mention that Freddy Krueger is listed in the end credits as playing himself. Mwahahaha!

Another positive element to mention for “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” is that it’s unpredictable. There are many neat tricks and twists to be found throughout this story (or story-within-a-story, if you will). And there are some neat omens, like the constant earthquakes in the earlier scenes and even the earlier dream sequences that foreshadow some important deaths. You’re wondering how is this going to pay off, and it does.

Though admittedly, some of the “meta” elements can get confusing, especially at the very end, “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” as a whole is a hip, funny, and scary horror film. It’s odd that the two “Nightmare” movies with Wes Craven turned out to be the most successful. I honestly don’t mind Craven working on another “Nightmare” movie. Just hope he’s not doing it because of crazy nightmares, though.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Rookie of the Year” is a pleasing family sports picture that plays to every Little League baseball player that would love to be the star player, but is mostly benched because he’ll screw things up if he plays. This movie is the story of one of those boys who has a miraculous change of skill that ultimately gets him to pitch for the Chicago Cubs. Of course, it’s not a true story; it’s pure fantasy wish-fulfillment. What kid obsessed with baseball doesn’t wish they could play in the major leagues?

“Rookie of the Year” is about a kid named Henry Rowengartner (Thomas Ian Nicholas), who is probably the worst Little Leaguer in history. He gets called out to right field and tries to catch a fly ball—but he trips, stumbles about trying to find the ball with his cap rim covering his eyes, and then throws it over the fence behind him when he finally grabs it. That’s it—this kid is bully meat for the rest of his life…or is he?

Things start to change for Henry once he trips in the schoolyard and breaks his pitching arm, forcing him to spend the summer in a cast that lifts his arm likes he’s always raising his hand. When the cast is off, the arm is healed in such a way that his tendons are actually tightened closely to one of the bones. When Henry and his friends Clark (Robert Gorman) and George (Patrick LaBrecque) attend a Cubs game at Wrigley Field, where they catch a home run ball in the bleachers. Henry throws it back and everyone is amazed to discover that Henry’s arm is so powerful that Henry is actually able to throw the ball from the stands to home plate.

The kindly Cubs owner (Eddie Bracken) and the slimy General Manager (Dan Hedaya) want to sign Henry onto the team, as it seems he can throw the ball faster than anybody else. Manager Sal Martinella (Albert Hall) gives the kid a tryout and immediately is called upon to play for the Chicago Cubs. Henry pitches several games and becomes an immediate celebrity.

One of the strengths of “Rookie of the Year” is Thomas Ian Nicholas as Henry Rowengartner (his last name is constantly mispronounced by Sal as a running joke). Nicholas gives Henry an appealing personality. He’s openly curious, bright, and excited, and his reactions to almost everything that happens to him is priceless. And then there’s the way he deals with certain games where he’s put on the spot. He has many schemes and tricks up his sleeve that come in handy in two particular game sequences that are both funny and bright. One is when he’s actually called up to bat, and tricks his way around running the bases (he has a small strike zone, causing him to take the base in the first place). Another is the obligatory Big Game—this one, in particular, can’t only be praised for the young actor, but also for the script. It starts out the usual way that all Big Games are supposed to be, but then something happens—I won’t give away what—that forces Henry to rely on his wits to help the team win the game. He plays it like a smart-aleck kid, mocking the other players and at one point “daring” one of them to run.

The whole movie is bright in that way, and has a good amount of clever, funny moments. Most of the comedy comes from a loopy pitching coach, played by Daniel Stern (who also directed the movie). He has an unusual way of speaking and a tendency to hit himself in the head with baseballs after practicing hitting them. The funniest bit in the movie—Stern gets himself caught in a tiny, cramped little closet area in a hotel, and no one is around to help. We see an above shot of just how tight the area is, as Stern looks straight up and says, “Little help now.” That was hilarious.

But the movie also has its dumb moments too. The final pitch, without giving anything away, is handled in a too-corny way. And John Candy, uncredited as a Cubs announcer, tries way too hard to imitate the appropriate voice for a Harry Carey type. I don’t like to criticize John Candy, but I was hoping for something more from him. Other stuff is obligatory, but kind of overdone—the basic example is not the Big Game, but the faltering relationship between Henry and his friends when Henry becomes too busy to hang out with them.

However, there are quite a few nice parts too. Gary Busey is very good as an over-the-hill pitcher who starts out grumpily with Henry, but eventually gives him advice and encouragement. There’s also another appealing character on Henry’s side—Henry’s strong, supportive mother, well-played by Amy Morton. And the scene in which Henry steps onto Wrigley Field for the first time captures the magic that a kid would feel if living this position.

“Rookie of the Year” is unlikely, which is the point for a fantasy. But it’s entertaining, funny, creative, and features a nice leading performance by Thomas Ian Nicholas. It’s a nice film for the whole family to enjoy.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Back to School” is a comedy starring comedian Rodney Dangerfield—that it’s delightful is a rarity since many movies featuring the hilarious Dangerfield tend to underplay his talent, rather than glorify it. Dangerfield is a very funny guy. He not only looks funny (which I mean in the nicest way possible—I mean, he looks funny because he widens his eyes and sweats whenever he’s anxious). He is funny. His infamous one-liners hit almost every time he delivers.

But about “Back to School”—Rodney Dangerfield is this movie. The movie is as routine as you’d expect, but it is pleasant enough and Dangerfield has a lot of fun playing center stage. He plays Thornton Melon, a wealthy clothing manufacturer (he owns a chain of Tall & Fat Shops) who cares for his son Jason (Keith Gordon, playing it sincere), a college student. Melon believes his son is a fraternity member and a star of the diving team. But when he arrives at the university for a surprise visit, he finds that Jason is actually the campus wimp who “don’t get no respect.” (By the way, I love this line Dangerfield delivers when Jason reveals that he lied about his popularity—“I’m your father. You don’t lie to me—you lie to girls.”)

Jason tells his dad that he’s thinking of dropping out. To change his mind, Melon decides to enroll himself as a freshman, to show Jason how important and easy it is to stay in school (which has the obvious flaw, since Melon never had a full education). Thanks to the venal administrator (get this—he’s referred to as “Dean” Martin), he’s able to take classes and show Jason the ropes while also playing by his own rules.

“Back to School” has its share of predictable stock characters—the bland but attractive bombshell that Jason pines for (who is a brunette instead of a blonde—a change for the 80s teen movie genre); the mean-spirited jock who always gives Jason and his punk buddy Derek (Robert Downey, Jr.) a hard time; and of course, the stuffy, overdressed professor (Paxton Whitehead) who, of course, doesn’t find Melon’s charm and humor appealing and sees Melon as a threat to a prestigious institution. (Oh, and did I mention that he has a snooty British accent?) While these three are obligatory and not that entertaining, other side characters are obligatory but also welcome and well-cast. One is that “punk buddy” character I mentioned, played by Robert Downey Jr., who has a unique comic presence; one is Ned Beatty as “Dean” Martin; another is Burt Young as Lou, Melon’s chauffer; there’s the reliable character actor M. Emmet Walsh as the diving instructor; and of course, there’s the sweet romantic interest—Sally Kellerman as the English teacher who shares a relationship with Melon as the story continues. But my favorite has to be Sam Kinison as a crazed Vietnam-veteran/history-teacher. He has very little to do, but his moments are very amusing.

The story is as standard and predictable as the characters, but it still has its funny moments, mostly thanks to fresh touches provided by the film’s writers (Steven Kampmann, Will Porter, Peter Torokvei, and Harold Ramis) and of course Dangerfield’s improvisations. For example, get a load of the scene in which Melon has to buy his books, using many credit cards—“Shakespeare for everybody!” he exclaims to everyone present. How about when he is assigned term papers? Who do you get to help? Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., of course! And I won’t give away more of the film’s gags. This isn’t going to one of those reviews of comedies that spoil gags to make the review funnier.

What it all comes down to is Rodney Dangerfield as Melon. He is what makes “Back to School” delightful. He’s hilarious every time he’s on screen. His improvisational one-liners are enough to make anyone smile, and it seems that everyone in the movie (aside from the snooty professor who practically has no soul) smile and chuckle, while the rest of us are laughing more. He makes this movie work.