Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Spaceballs” is a comedy by Mel Brooks which has a lot of jokes that are hit-and-miss, but also has just about the same amount of jokes that are hits in the way that I laughed. This is not one of Mel Brooks’ best films—it doesn’t rank up there with “Young Frankenstein.” Or rather, it’s not one of Mel Brooks’ best scripts. There are so many lame puns and juvenile humor. What had me laughing, however, were the visual gags and the behavior of some of the characters, especially the villains. So there are enough funny moments in “Spaceballs” that I’m giving it a mild recommendation.

The whole movie is a parody of the “Star Wars” movies. We have almost everything from the famous George Lucas saga spoofed here. We have Luke Skywalker/Han Solo type Lone Starr, the beautiful but stuck-up Princess Druidia (a “Druish” princess), a droid named Dot Matrix (oh yeah, and voiced by Joan Rivers), a half-man/half-dog Chewbacca replacement named Barf (“I’m my own best friend”), the short wise alien named Yogurt, and of course, the villain Dark Helmet. There are other characters, but I’ll get to them later.

The film begins with those “Star Wars” opening texts that scroll into space, explaining the back story of “Spaceballs” and ending with a fade-in saying, “If you can read this, you don’t need glasses.” That’s funny. But—and maybe I missed something here—there’s a long, tedious shot of the villain’s spaceship that goes on for a minute and a half and doesn’t seem to show anything…well, funny. But then we’re introduced to the villain Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis), who has a large dark helmet that brings his voice to a James Earl Jones baritone type. How do we know it’s Rick Moranis, though? Because Dark Helmet can’t keep the helmet on all the time (he can’t breathe, he can’t see straight, he has to drink a cappuccino, you name it). And he’s a nerd. One of the joys about “Spaceballs” is that Dark Helmet, his second-in-command Sandurz (George Wyner), and President Skroob of Spaceball City (Mel Brooks)—the three villains of the movie—are so dumb, you can’t believe that they’d lead any army. It’s very funny when they plan any evil plot in this movie.

The heroes are the rebellious Lone Starr (a very bland Bill Pullman) and his partner Barf (a very likable John Candy), who as I said is half-man/half-dog (with paws and a tail). They fly through outer space into a flighty Winnebago (nice visual gag) on the run from Pizza the Hutt, a Jabba the Hutt type except he’s a mountain of cheese and pepperoni. Pizza the Hutt is just as disgusting as Jabba the Hutt, but also the funniest gag in the whole movie.

Lone Starr and Barf are called upon by King Roland of Planet Druidia, which is in danger of being destroyed by the Spaceballs of Planet Spaceball—run by President Skroob (Dark Helmet is in charge of the spaceship Spaceball One). King Roland (Dick van Patten) needs the heroes to rescue Princess Vespa (Daphne Zuniga, “The Sure Thing”) and Dot Matrix from capture by Dark Helmet. They succeed, but find themselves lost on a desert planet, where Lone Starr and Princess Vespa argue as Barf and Dot Matrix look on and spew one-liners, and they meet a Yoda type named Yogurt (also played by Mel Brooks) who gives Lone Starr a special ring and gives them the phrase, “May the Schwartz be with you.” This constant repeating of the phrase is so hoping for memorable payoff that it isn’t funny.

As I said, “Spaceballs” has many jokes that are hit-and-miss. The script has a lot of puns and juvenile humor (there’s a difference here). But there are other jokes that do work in the way that I laughed joyfully and recommending the movie. I loved the Pizza the Hutt gag, I liked John Candy and Rick Moranis, Mel Brooks gives two wacky performances, I liked the gag where the villains  try to watch the movie itself to find the heroes, I liked the satire on stunt doubles, and uh…I think there are a couple more if I can think of them.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Three Men and a Baby” is the American remake of a French comedy, which I never saw. But it doesn’t matter much anyway, since remakes are supposed to stand alone as movies instead of always being compared to the original all the time (even though we can’t help ourselves). So I don’t know what was upgraded and what was downgraded for this American remake of “3 Men and a Cradle” (the French film). But as a movie, “Three Men and a Baby” is a nice, gentle comedy with good laughs and a real sweetness to it.

The movie features Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, and Ted Danson as three bachelors who share a luxury apartment as their own bachelor pad in New York. (By the way, I love the look of the place; paintings of the city and portraits of the three guys outline the walls…though I don’t think it’d be suitable for a bachelor pad.) The first fifteen minutes of the film is just them delivering wisecracking dialogue and gawking over women. They have a seemingly endless series of girlfriends, some of which we see at a birthday party of one of the guys.

Then, the next day, actor Jack (Danson) leaves to shoot a film in Turkey for about ten weeks, but architect Peter (Selleck) and cartoonist Michael (Guttenberg) find a big surprise waiting on their doorstep. It’s a little baby, asleep in a bassinet with a note attached to it. The baby is Jack’s after an affair from long ago. The mother has sent the baby, named Mary, to the apartment. With Jack not around, Peter and Michael are forced to handle the situation, but of course know absolutely nothing about taking care of a baby. They refer to Mary as “it,” don’t know how to entertain her when she’s crying, doesn’t know what she eats, and, in one of the film’s funniest scenes, they figure out how to change a diaper. Their confusion is not helped when they go out to the store to buy baby food, and there seems to be a lot depending on the age, which they don’t know. Each day passes by and they’re still miserable and confused with this bundle. All the baby does is eat and poop. But later with each day, they actually start to love Mary.

When “Three Men and a Baby” focuses on these scenes in which these guys deal with the baby and grow to love her, it works. There are a lot of big laughs in the complaints that these men have (such as how Peter wonders if feeding the baby every two hours means from start to finish) and in how people react to the situation (a grocery clerk asks suspiciously, “You don’t know how old your own baby is?”). And then when Jack comes home, Peter and Michael use this as revenge for leaving them here with his own baby. Jack nervously tries to handle it himself, as Peter and Michael did, because “I’m an actor—I can play a father.” He tries to get his mother to help, but she sets him straight, saying it’s his turn to take care of things for himself for once.

The best moment in the movie is when all three guys softly sing the baby to sleep with “Good Night, Sweetheart.” It’s a touching, genuinely moving scene.

“Three Men and a Baby” succeeds when handling this forming relationship these men have with the baby. What doesn’t work is a tired subplot involving another package delivered to the apartment; only, this one is full of heroin. Some drug dealers come by, asking about the package, which the guys at first think they mean is the baby. Once they realize what they really want, they can’t find the package and are not only in trouble with the dealers, but also with the cops who are investing a drug-included case. And this leads to a confrontation between the men and the drug dealers in a construction site, the screenwriter’s reliable Hollywood cliché. Why, when the central story is cute and funny and heartwarming, did they have to add a subplot about drugs? It’s unnecessary, and the final confrontation is not effectively staged, even though director Leonard (Spock) Nimoy and writers James Orr and Jim Cruikshank try their best to keep it tense. I guess it’s supposed to show how far the guys will go to protect the baby, since the dealers actually leave a note saying they’ll take her next time. But we didn’t need a drug-related subplot.

But there is plenty of material with the three men and the baby that the comedy elements outweigh the “suspense” elements. All three actors do game jobs, especially Tom Selleck who does a great job mixing tenderness with light comedy. He’s convincing throughout the movie. Steve Guttenberg has good moments (such as when he tries to entertain the baby while she’s crying) and Ted Danson is credible as a snobbish, handsome actor.

“Three Men and a Baby” is a funny, moving movie when it focuses on the title roles. Sure, the screenplay doesn’t take the high road and like I said, I could’ve done without the drug stuff, but it mostly succeeds in winning us over.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Not many movies inspired by other movies have the nerve to name their sources on screen, let alone have a character watch the source in a movie theater. But Danny DeVito obviously knows that and gives his character a scene in “Throw Momma from the Train”—a film that is sort of a comedic version of the Hitchcock film “Strangers on a Train”—in which he goes to a movie theater, sees that movie, and it inspires him to set up the plot.

“Strangers on a Train” was about two strangers who meet on a train and one proposes a plot to commit a murder for each other. In “Throw Momma from the Train,” there are also two strangers who have people they wish were dead. Writer Larry Donner (Billy Crystal) feels anger for his wife, who has stolen his book and published it with her name. Owen Lift (DeVito), who is somewhat of a pathetic schlub, lives with his overbearing mother, who is sort of a cross between Quasimodo and the Wicked Witch of the West. He dreams of killing her, but grows spineless at every attempt.

Owen is a student in Larry’s creative writing class. When he asks Larry what he can do to improve on his writing, he tells Owen to go see an Alfred Hitchcock film for inspiration. One day, at lunch, Larry’s wife is mentioned to Larry and he responds by exclaiming, “I wish she was dead!”

Owen goes to see “Strangers on a Train,” he gets the idea of the movie, and believes that the choice of the film was a message from Larry. Larry only says he wants his wife dead, but Owen takes him seriously. He supposedly (the murder is off-screen) kills Larry’s wife and expects Larry to “return the favor” and kill his mother.

And who could blame Owen for wanting his mother dead? Momma is a monster and Larry knows that too—he has a line later in the film, “She’s not a woman—she’s the Terminator.” Anne Ramsey goes all out with this performance, and she is more than game.

DeVito is the star of this movie. He delivers a performance of a man who really needs help and we start to care for the guy. He’s a good director too—he frames certain shots in which he almost looks like a small boy; he has a tendency to make the everyday world seem somewhat surreal; and he gets the material. The best scene in the film is a sweet one—it’s a scene in which he shows Crystal his coin collection. Those aren’t coins that are really worth anything but they remind him of places his dad used to take him. That’s a very good scene, with a real amount of whimsy put to it.

There are also a couple of big laughs in this movie—one of them involves Crystal at the river trying to find an opening line for his book. And the other involves DeVito and Crystal in DeVito’s house—they’re having breakfast in the kitchen, Crystal meets Momma, and without giving too much away, there’s a frying pan involved, and the scene delivers possibly the funniest moment in the movie.

Admittedly, the whole murder situation is a little uneven. But with a few sweet scenes, some good laughs, and good performances by DeVito, Crystal, and Ramsey, this is an enjoyable, entertaining comedy.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Some Kind of Wonderful” is written by John Hughes and has a similar story to Hughes’ other screenplay, “Pretty in Pink.” The story itself is old, but people will see the connection from “Some Kind of Wonderful” to “Pretty in Pink” because they were both written by John Hughes and they both feature teenagers. (Both movies also have the same director—Howard Deutch.) What’s the story? A high school outcast has a crush on a more popular student, while the outcast’s best friend (of the opposite sex) has a crush on the outcast and situations follow that could or could not bring them together. You know, the protagonists in these movies never know better than to just go with the pal—see “Secret Admirer,” see “The Sure Thing,” even see “Lucas” and you’ll see what I mean.

The story follows a high school senior named Keith (Eric Stoltz), who comes from a working-class family, loves art, works at a gas station, and is an outcast at school because of all of the above. His best friend is a tomboy named Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson), who cares about two things—her drum-kit and Keith. But of course, Keith doesn’t even know about Watts’ feelings towards him, because he has a crush on Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson), the school’s rich “uptown girl.” He gets his chance to ask Amanda out on a date when her boyfriend Hardy (Craig Sheffer) cheats on her and she says yes to Keith.

Keith finds out that if he goes on his date with Amanda, then Hardy and his friends will humiliate him that same night, but Keith decides to continue with the date and hopefully find some way to teach Hardy a lesson. But on his date with Amanda, he asks himself what he should have been asking himself before. Is he interested in Amanda’s soul or just her body? In fact, that’s exactly what Amanda asks Keith on their date to an art museum, after Keith hangs up his own painting of her. And what about Watts…? This is the movie’s more intriguing concept—to ask the question of whether or not the guy deserves the girl, not merely the question of will the guy get the girl?

While all this is going on, Keith is constantly pushed by his father (John Ashton) to start applying to different colleges, so he’ll get into at least one. But Keith doesn’t want to go to college—his father never went to college, and Keith would rather devote his life to artwork. And here we have a rarity in John Hughes’ teenager movies—an adult character that is just as interesting as the teenagers. I can only remember two before “Some Kind of Wonderful”—the father characters in “Sixteen Candles” and “Pretty in Pink”—here’s another one. (The principal in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” was only interesting in that movie’s first half.) And it’s pleasing to see how the situation resolves—not with a shouting match, but with a civilized argument.

There are problems with “Some Kind of Wonderful”—some scenes progress slowly, and some characters are pretty standard; particularly Hardy, who’s a one-dimensional snobby, begrudging rich kid. But it’s pleasing to see Keith make friends with someone who could have been a villain—a punk kid named Duncan (Elias Koteas) whom Keith meets in detention. I suppose that’s supposed to make it OK that the rich Hardy is the villain of this movie. There’s also Keith’s incorrigible junior-high-aged sister (Maddie Corman), who, like most junior high girls, is a brat who just wants to be cool.

(By the way, the funniest scene is when the sister just flat-out SCREAMS when her father says, “Hi, honey,” outside her classroom at school. Tip for junior high school kids—if you want to be cool and not be made fun of, don’t scream in the classroom.)

The three central young actors are appealing—Eric Stoltz is dim but likable as Keith, and Lea Thompson isn’t the snob that Amanda could have been. But my favorite is Mary Stuart Masterson as Watts. As a tough tomboy, she’s a lot of fun, though she has a tough exterior but a soft interior. She’s dedicated to the things she cares about. She even volunteers to chauffer Keith and Amanda around on their date—it’s weird, but kind of sweet. And who could forget the look in her eyes when she sees the other two together? There are a lot of scenes in which Masterson must feel one way about something while pretending to feel another way, and she’s a fully capable actress.

“Some Kind of Wonderful” is an improved version of “Pretty in Pink,” which was too full of itself, in my opinion. “Some Kind of Wonderful,” for it’s faults, actually takes more chances for us to like the characters and has an ending that is near perfect for the movie. It’s a movie about insecure teenagers making smart and dumb decisions and dealing with rejection and acceptance. It’s a nice movie.