Sling Blade (1996)

24 Mar

images-1

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The first scene in “Sling Blade” lets you know that you’re in for something unique. It’s a remarkable monologue delivered by its lead character Karl Childers. Karl is mentally retarded, has a raspy voice, an overshot jaw, and a chilling story to tell. He has spent years in a mental institution after killing his mother and her lover. He is telling the story to a high school student for her newspaper and the only light in the room in which he tells the story is from a lamp. The lighting makes the scene even more chilling while he’s giving his monologue. But we also see the pain in Karl’s eyes as he tells it. It’s a great scene.

Karl is being let out into the world, because the doctors think he’s cured. He probably is. He’s not a killer; just a misunderstood human being. When asked if he could kill again, he says, “I reckon I got no reason to kill nobody.”

Karl Childers is one of the most memorable movie characters I’ve ever seen. Think of Forrest Gump crossed with a country man, give him a chilling back story, and you have a truly original character. He has little intelligence but feels pain and has a sort of sweetness to him. He also speaks and acts in a much distinctive way. Karl is played by Billy Bob Thornton, who also directed and wrote “Sling Blade,” with brilliance. He came up with the character, he notes, one day while shaving and practicing in the mirror, talking in a raspy voice. And Thornton makes “Sling Blade” a truly original, compelling, fascinating piece of work.

When he’s released, Karl finds work as a mechanic and befriends a boy named Frank (Lucas Black). Frank is a troubled boy whom Karl senses has a wounded spirit. He lives with a loving mother (Natalie Canerday), who lets Karl live in her garage. But Frank’s wounded spirit and troubles are caused by his mother’s boyfriend Doyle (country singer Dwight Yoakam), who is one of the slimiest characters in any movie. This is an example of Evil Personified. He lounges around the living room, has loud hurtful opinions about everyone, is abusive, and criticizes Frank very cruelly. Why the woman just doesn’t dump Doyle is beyond me, but whatever. Love is blind.

Another key character is Vaughan (John Ritter), a homosexual who is insecure about his sexuality but trying to accept it. He’s also a nice guy who looks out for Frank and his mother.

Even though I’m giving “Sling Blade” four stars, I have to admit I knew how the movie was going to end and what was going to happen. It became obvious when we have a character who has murdered in the past and another who might murder a boy and his mother. But it’s the way it’s all played out that grant the movie four stars instead of three-and-a-half. Everything else is great. The characters are well-developed, especially Karl who is, like I said, one of the most memorable movie characters. I enjoyed going along with Karl on his journey through the town—ordering French fries, going to work, and spending time with Frank and those around him. We see everything through Karl. We hardly stray away from him. Thornton is just wonderful as Karl—it’s the kind of performance that deserves recognition (and thankfully, it did). Lucas Black delivers one of the best child performances as far as I’m concerned (and that’s saying something, considering all the young talent that’s introduced year by year), John Ritter doesn’t hit a wrong note with his performance, and Dwight Yoakam is suitably (and memorably) slimy as the abusive Doyle.

“Sling Blade” is a fantastic movie. I loved almost every moment of it. Even the obvious destination isn’t overplayed, but just played. With great performances by the talented cast, excellent direction, and great writing, “Sling Blade” is a spellbindingly good film.

The Phantom (1996)

24 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Phantom” is based on the superhero comic strip originated in the 1930s, which means this is probably one of the very first superheroes, if not the first (I regret not knowing the history of Batman or Superman). The Phantom—or the Ghost Who Walks—is not one of the well-known heroes, and the film adaptation shows how dated the hero is. The movie apparently knows this too, as it takes place in the same time period as when the comic strip was first released. The movie is true to the Phantom’s origins. When he’s not the mild-mannered Kit Walker (Billy Zane), he’s the Phantom. He doesn’t have the strength, speed, or flight of Superman or Batman’s cool gadgetry, and he’s not very stealth either. He’s a man who is quick-witted and fast on his feet, but not incredibly super. He’s called the Phantom, or the Ghost Who Walks, but he’s not a ghost. He’s human—he can’t live forever. Apparently, he’s the 21st in a long line of Phantoms who live a skull cave in the jungle. Phantoms have a vow to fight evil and thievery, and thus whenever someone comes sneaking around the jungle trying to obtain something hidden, the “Ghost Who Walks” is there to thwart them.

OK, why he’s called “Ghost Who Walks” is beyond me. Is “Ghost Who Works” really supposed to sound scary? Why not “Ghost Who Kills?” That’s as silly, but more threatening than…a ghost who walks. But more importantly, there’s the issue of the Phantom’s silly purple costume and eye mask. Yeah, it’s pretty silly-looking and you know purple never blends into anything, let alone the jungle. But let it slide—the movie is entertaining enough to forget that.

“The Phantom” features an evil industrialist named Xander Drax (Treat Williams), who plans to find a few of these mystical skulls that, when combined, can create unbelievable power and thus give him the ability to overpower mankind. Onto him is a Big Apple newspaper publisher (Bill Smitrovich) who investigates along with his daughter Diana Palmer (Kristy Swanson). But Diana gets captured by Drax’s pirates, including Catherine Zeta-Jones as an exotic bad girl whom Diana constantly tries to get to join the good side because…she’s a woman, I guess. The Phantom rescues her, and he helps on the quest to stop Drax from locating the skulls. And by the way, here’s a “small-world” moment for you—Kit Walker, the Phantom’s human identity, actually had a relationship with his damsel-in-distress Diana in the past. Small world, huh?

“The Phantom” lets loose a lot of fun action sequences—chases, fights, and other stunts that are quite impressive. My favorite is a central sequence in which the Phantom and Diana get away from the villains’ ship, using one of their planes, and having to land on the Phantom’s fast horse before the conveniently-extremely-low-on-fuel plane crashes. (This horse and the Phantom’s wolf who runs at the same speed have to be the fastest animals in the world.) There’s also a showdown in a creepy cavern, a struggle with a truck on an unstable suspension bridge, and other neat action scenes that are quite fun. No wonder, considering the writer of this movie—Jeffery Boam—was the writer of the third Indiana Jones movie.

Billy Zane is a terrific casting choice for the Phantom. He’s sly, suave, bright, and just finds the right tone for the role. Kristy Swanson, as Diana, doesn’t just play the damsel-in-distress. She has enough spunk and nice moves to make the character as interesting as she can. Treat Williams is an absolute riot as the slick villain Drax—you can tell he’s having a ton of fun with this role. And also on hand is Catherine Zeta-Jones, who has plenty of gusto as the woman working for the bad guys, but could maybe be useful for the good guys.

Even if “The Phantom” gets pretty silly (and you have to admit, that silly purple costume doesn’t make the Phantom look particularly threatening), it is still a modestly entertaining movie with game performances and some nifty action scenes as well.

Vision Quest (1985)

23 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Even though “Vision Quest” follows a routine that most sports movies follow, it’s still a nicely done, entertaining film about a high school wrestler who has two dreams that must come true before the movie is over. The first dream is to go to the state championship and take on the toughest guy on the mat. The other dream is to win the love of a girl who has come into his life.

The kid’s name is Louden Swain (played by Matthew Modine). He has dropped from 200 pounds to 178 to join a different weight division on the school wrestling team. He baffles the coach, but is determined enough to continue working out and lose more pounds to compete against the toughest wrestler in the state, named Shute.

As you can read, the protagonist is about as standard as a sports film can ask for, but Matthew Modine is a fine actor and does what he can with his attitude as an actor to make his character quirky and engaging, and therefore a nice leading man to follow.

On his side are Louden’s respectful father (Ronny Cox); an English teacher, Tanneran (Harold Sylvester); a wrestling coach (Charles Hallahan) though sometimes he feels negatively about Louden’s determination; and his best friend Kuch (Michael Schoeffling), a teenage punk with a Mohawk hairstyle and describes himself as “Half-Indian,” though he might just be going through a phase. All of these characters are not like the usual types you would see in most sports films. For example, the father in this movie is not scornful and skeptical; the coach isn’t entirely cynical; the best friend is an actual individual instead of a one-dimensional, loudmouthed idiot. They’re all fresh and original characters.

But then there’s the girl that Louden tries to win the heart of. Her name is Carla and she’s hands-down the best character in “Vision Quest.” She’s a 21-year-old independent drifter who stays with Louden and his dad while her car, which has broken down while passing through town, is being fixed. Carla (Linda Fiorentino) is a woman who doesn’t look at anybody the wrong way; just as they are. But at the same time, she still keeps her cunning attitude and uses it to see who is real and who is a phony. Maybe this could explain why, after Louden realizes he’s infatuated by her, she doesn’t question why he sniffs her panties when he thinks no one Is looking. She doesn’t confront him about it; she waits it out to see what he’ll do next before passing judgments. What develops is a sweet relationship that doesn’t revolve around sex, but with trust. By the end of the film, you have to wonder what will happen for them in the future. That’s where the real suspense is; not just with the big match at the end.

We know that Louden will reach down to the weight limit to fight Shute, we know that they will fight in a big match with a large crowd watching, and we know there will be certain complications beforehand. But the twist is that those complications are uncertain when we follow Louden and Carla as their relationship grows. Now I have to confess something—as I mention this relationship (and continue to think about those remarkable supporting characters), I change my rating from three stars to three-and-a-half stars. I guess what can be said about “Vision Quest” is that if a seemingly-tired genre film is written well and acted beautifully, it can redeem the subject matter.

Russkies (1987)

23 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: **1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Russkies” is a good-natured film that has a cute setup and some nice ideas to follow through with it, right up until the ending climax that made the film seem desperate.

The movie, set in Key West, Florida, at a time when the Cold War is still going on, features three pre-teenage boys who find a Russian sailor. The Russian is stranded after being washed ashore and the boys are the first ones to find him. The boys—Danny (Joaquin “Leaf” Phoenix), Adam (Peter Billingsley, “A Christmas Story”), and Jason (Stefan DeSalle)—have been reared by military families and raised on a series of anti-foreigner comic books called “Sgt. Slammer,” so naturally, their first instinct is to believe that this Russian radio operator is a Commie spy. They’re able to hold him at gunpoint with the Russian’s own gun and threaten to turn him into the authorities, but soon enough, they discover that Mischa—the Russian, played by Whip Hubley—is actually a nice guy and decide to let him hang around with them.

This is good stuff—the way these kids interact with this stranger is handled in a fun way and not a disturbing way. The kids are well-cast and Whip Hubley has appeal and a certain credibility as a Russian—sometimes, he’s not entirely convincing as a Russian, but close enough mostly. And it is nice to see how Mischa reacts to America—he eats Big Macs, gets used to Jeans and collar shirts, plays video games, rides go-carts, and even develops a relationship with Adam’s sweet older sister Diane (Susan Walters)—but also would love to return home somehow.

While the setup is fun, “Russkies,” unfortunately, has a dim-witted payoff that is implausible and seems like a pale imitation of the climax in “E.T.” Without going into much detail, much of it involves a sadistic drunken fisherman, the kids’ idiot parents, and two real Russian spies in a boat chase for separate reasons. I did not need this climax and I particularly did not need a mean drunk to be the real bad guy here.

What “Russkies” has that makes it work are fun scenes set in the kids’ point of view, mixing comic books with comedy and adventure. They are what I liked about “Russkies,” but the rest of the film has run out of ideas and energy, and so I can’t recommend it.

The Muppet Movie (1979)

23 Mar

the-muppet-movie-all-of-us-under-its-spell

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When we see the Muppets, do we really need to wonder where the puppeteers are when they’re controlling the Muppets’ actions and moving mouths? I personally don’t care, since the Muppets have great personalities. But the opening scene in “The Muppet Movie” had me wonder where the puppeteer was. That scene features Kermit the Frog in a swamp surrounded by water and playing the banjo. Since Kermit is on a rock and surrounded by water, where is the puppeteer controlling him from? But as the scene progressed and Kermit continued to play, I didn’t care. I just watched Kermit in his original habitat.

If you haven’t already guessed, “The Muppet Movie” tells the story of how the Muppets got started in fame and fortune. This is as interesting as superhero origin story. We all wanted to know how our favorite superheroes became our favorite superheroes and now, since the Muppets hit close to our hearts, we can see how they became such successes. “The Muppet Movie” is the answer to the question fans of the Muppets would have loved to ask, but haven’t quite thought about it.

Kermit the Frog used to live in a swamp (of course). One day, after playing his banjo, he is met by Dom DeLuise as a Hollywood agent who informs Kermit that Hollywood is holding an audition for frogs. And so, Kermit is off to Hollywood. He needs a driver so he meets Fozzie the Bear, originally a bartender. They drive a Studebaker and make their way into Hollywood (Fozzie proclaims, “A bear in his natural habitat—a Studebaker”).

Along the way, they come across the other Muppets—such as Gonzo (originally a plumber) and Miss Piggy (who hasn’t changed much since they meet her after she wins a beauty pageant). But they are also chased by a ruthless fast food magnate, who wants Kermit to sign on as a trademark for a frog-leg fast-food franchise. He even hires gunmen and an unreliable sidekick (Austin Pendleton) to hunt him down. This subplot may frighten younger viewers, so parents should take that into consideration.

As if predictably, Kermit and Miss Piggy fall in love, but they run into many ups and downs during this road trip. Along the way, the Muppets become friends and encounter all sorts of special guest appearances, including Mel Brooks, Bob Hope, Carol Kane, Steve Martin, Richard Pryor, Telly Savalas, Orson Welles, and, in their last film appearance before their deaths, Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. The best joke in the film—Fozzie meets Big Bird hitchhiking on the highway and offers a lift; Big Bird responds, “No thanks. I’m on my way to New York City to sneak into public television.” The movie is full of clever, funny moments like that—as rich as anything in “The Muppet Show.” But “The Muppet Movie” has a great big surprise and that is…we see the Muppets’ feet. There’s a scene in which Kermit really seems to be riding a bicycle and all I’m thinking is, “How’d they do THAT?”  And of course, there has to be a musical number every 20 minutes. The problem is that the songs are not particularly interesting or memorable.

In “The Muppet Movie,” we get to know these characters better than we could in their original TV show. The Muppets are appealing, great to look at, well-managed, and with great comic personalities. I loved watching these Muppets in their own origin story.

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)

23 Mar

dodgeball1

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

No, I don’t believe that “Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story” was based on a true underdog story. More accurately, it could be labeled as an underdog story that is much funnier that how we usually see underdogs in movies. The underdog team that we follow in “Dodgeball” is a band of underdogs who get better at playing the movie’s sport and play in the Big Game. Among the guys on the team are a guy who thinks he’s a pirate and another guy who didn’t know that there even was such a guy on the team.

What is the sport these underdogs play in the movie? Well, it is dodgeball. It’s that game we’ve all played in school in gym class where you try to hit the opposing team with rubber balls. The best way to win is to get all the bigger guys on your team, and if you have enough guts to catch a ball before it hits the ground, then the player who threw that ball is out and a person from your team comes back into the game.

OK, enough of the refresher course. Back to the first movie about dodgeball called “Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story”…

The reliably-funny and fast-talking Vince Vaughn plays Peter La Fleur, an Average Joe who manages a rundown gym called “Average Joe’s.” Among those who hang around there are the pirate character I mentioned earlier, the person who didn’t know there was a pirate guy around, a geeky teenager, and an overweight loser who reads a magazine called “Obscure Sports Quarterly.” Peter’s rival is the ridiculously pompous White Goodman (Ben Stiller), who runs “Globo Gym,” an over-the-top fitness program with the slogan, “We’re better than you and we know it!”

Ben Stiller’s performance has to be seen to be believed. Imagine Fonzie of TV’s “Happy Days” and make him more energetic and in spandex. Though the performance almost runs out of steam towards the end, it’s still very funny.

Anyway, White wants to close down the “Average Joe’s” gym to create a new building for his corporation of fit sadists. So, Peter and his group challenge White and his band of monsters to a Las Vegas Dodgeball Tournament, televised by ESPN 8 (“The Ocho”).

What follows is a great line of gags and jokes that I will not reveal, but I have give notice to Rip Torn, who portrays the coach for the team of misfits. He’s an old coot in a wheelchair, but also a veteran of dodgeball. His methods are very unusual but downright hilarious. They involve a sack of wrenches. Two other characters draw our attention: Christine Taylor (Ben Stiller’s wife) is an attractive bank employee who joins the good guys in the tournament and may (or may not) have a thing for Peter. And Gary Cole is very funny as the commentator on the tournament. It’s the funniest sports commentary since Fred Willard’s commentary in “Best in Show.”

Every character in this movie is either funny or fun to watch. And this movie really is funny. The strangest thing about Vince Vaughn’s performance is that he doesn’t do a lot to be funny. He plays a straight man that happens to deliver some one-liners when he has to. Some of the gags are great, including one in a scene where White pumps himself up before meeting a woman (not giving away the gag). There are cameos that come in and out and those bits are funny too. And another great thing about this movie is that during the Big Game (of course, it’s obvious that the “Average Joe’s” team is going to play in the Big Game), I wasn’t bored. I was with these guys, getting hit with dodgeballs with these guys, and I was glad to go along for the ride with these guys. And I laughed along the way.

“Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story” is a very funny movie; full of fun characters to watch, very funny moments here and there, and a satire on overdone sports movies. And I guess I can say nobody throws a wrench like Rip Torn.

George of the Jungle (1997)

23 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I wasn’t a fan of the original animated TV series “George of the Jungle.” In fact, I never saw it. All I know about it is its catchy theme song that goes “George—George—George of the Jungle.” But the show’s film adaptation of the same name “George of the Jungle” is so fresh and funny that I don’t think I want to watch the show. I should probably quit while I’m ahead.

One of the best things about the movie “George of the Jungle” is the casting of Brendan Fraser. He’s the type of guy who might be seen posing as Tarzan on a GQ magazine cover, but he’s also convincing as a doofus. He plays George, who was separated from his human family as a baby and raised by apes in the jungle. He has grown to manhood as king of the jungle. The running gag is that George loves to swing on vines, much like Tarzan, only he crashes into trees, even after someone warns him, “Watch out for that tree!”

Exploring his jungle is a young woman named Ursula (Leslie Mann) and her self-absorbed fiancé Lyle (Thomas Haden Church) as they hunt for a legendary White Ape (which is probably George). They are attacked by a lion, and when Lyle is knocked unconscious when running away, George comes to the aid of Lyle’s lovely fiancée in a very funny scene in which George fights with the lion. When I heard the boxing bell ring three times before the fight, I laughed and knew I was in for a treat. This scene is a real treat—George clotheslines the lion, spins it on his finger (“George not even trying hard”), and even body slams the animal. The way it’s handled is cartoonish, but very funny.

When George takes Ursula back to his tree house, he introduces her to his “brother”—a walking, talking, and even intelligent ape named Ape (voiced by John Cleese). Then he introduces her to the funniest creature in the movie. This is George’s “dog” Shep, who is really an elephant who thinks he’s a dog because George trained him to be a dog. When I saw this elephant run and bark over to George, I laughed and laughed and laughed and had trouble stopping. The scene gets even funnier when George plays fetch with Shep by throwing a huge log to where he can fetch it with his trunk.

“George of the Jungle” is full of good cheer and delivers with humor and charm. The charm of the film comes from the funny moments and also the love story that develops between George and Ursula. George has never seen a human female before so this attraction to her is all too new for him. It’s sweet the way their relationship becomes something more. And the movie really is funny. I love the elephant and the ape has more comic timing than the gorilla from “Congo” (you know, the gorilla trained to speak sign language and drink martinis). It’s also funny the way the script kids itself with the flimsy material. I love how the narrator kids with the characters and the storyline through most of the movie. Here’s an example:

NARRATOR: They reacted with awe. CHARACTERS: Awwwwwwww… NARRATOR: I said “awe.” A-W-E. CHARACTERS: Ooooohhhh… NARRATOR: That’s better.

The movie does start to head downhill when George is taken to Ursula’s jungle—the city of San Francisco. George has never seen anything outside the wildlife before so he attempts to fit in but of course it’s not easy. The whole episode of that concept is funny at first, kind of like a “Crocodile Dundee” situation, but then it starts to grow a little tedious and the energy doesn’t quite pick up until George is forced to go back into the jungle and rescue Ape from poachers.

“George of the Jungle” is alive and suitably silly. It has many funny gags and a lot of charm. Even if the whole “fish-out-of-water” subplot doesn’t exactly work, the rest of the film is still fun to watch.

River’s Edge (1987)

22 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

It’s one thing to make a teen drama. It’s quite another to make a teen drama inspired by a true story. The fact that the film “River’s Edge” is inspired by a true story makes the film even more disturbing. The film features teenagers who drink, do dope, and have no real purpose in life. Just the way these kids are depicted is unnerving enough, but the main storyline is about one of those teenagers killing another of their own without any remorse. Why? She was talking too much. And it’s a true story. A high school student, in real life, did strangle his girlfriend and showed the body to his friends. What’s worse? The friends never said anything about it to the authorities for quite a while until one of them finally confessed.

“River’s Edge” is not a forgettable film. It’s a disturbing, unnerving, creepy portrait of stoned teenagers who think they mean well but really they’re just confused. The way they act is unsettling for any parent. There is one kid who more heartfelt than the others, but he still smokes dope—his mother also thinks he’s stealing her dope. The kid scolds his younger brother, who is a 12-year-old, sadistic little creep who just dumped away his little sister’s beloved doll. “You’re stupid enough to pull a stunt like that, but then to go and brag about it…”

Not much later, the kid and his friends are taken to the side of a river to see the naked dead body of a girlfriend of one of the teenagers. The film is not really about the girl’s killer (Daniel Roebuck), who couldn’t care less about what could happen to him if anyone else finds out. The film focuses its attention on the group’s self-appointed leader Layne (Crispin Glover), who has obviously taken one shot of speed too many. Layne wants to protect his friend and orders the others not to say anything. But the sensitive kid, Matt (Keanu Reeves), doesn’t want to wait much longer. Also, there’s a girl named Clarissa (Ione Skye) who asks, “She was our friend. Shouldn’t we feel sorry for her? Are we supposed to just ignore it?”

What’s even more haunting about these kids is that the young actors portray them all convincingly. Is this what America’s youth will be reduced to? It is too late for the kids in this movie—they are so far into drugs and alcohol that they can only fear their own futures and their pasts. In particular, Crispin Glover’s performance is quite memorable—the way he uses body language and that weird voice of his to try and get his point across is electric. And then there’s Joshua Miller as the sadistic kid brother Tim. This kid is definitely not likable and a beating would be a celebration for his deeds…but he is all too real, and you know he’ll be as messed up as the older kids.

Another great performance is given by Dennis Hopper as Feck, a drug dealer who supplies the kids with dope and befriends the young killer because they both have something in common. They both killed their girlfriends. Feck shot his in the head out of passion. But his way of living and hiding out soon comes to question in his own mind when the kid comes clean about why he strangled his girlfriend to death.

“River’s Edge” was directed by Tim Hunter, who also directed “Tex,” which also featured troubled teenagers. In this movie, Hunter gives the teenaged characters not much room to grow (it’s unclear if they can grow) and surrounds them with a crisis even bigger than what they’ve already been exposed to. It’s a despairing, horrifying, yet effective portrait of adolescents who just don’t care much for what’s happening around them.

North (1994)

22 Mar

images-1

Smith’s Verdict: Zero Stars

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

How in the world did this happen? How was this movie made? How did anyone think this idea could possibly work for a family film? How were all of these talented actors sucked into performing in it? The answers to all of those questions at once could make for a movie actually worth seeing. “North” is not worth seeing for any reason. It is a very bad movie—one of the worst I’ve ever seen. It is unfunny, manipulative, limp, very unpleasant to watch, and worst of all, it’s for kids. That meant kids were suckered into seeing this because they saw the trailer and expected it to be a delightful little romp—I feel sorry for those kids, but there’s comfort in knowing that there were much better films suitable for them out there.

“North” stars Elijah Wood as a young boy named North, who feels that his parents don’t appreciate him. The parents (Jason Alexander and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, very odd casting if you’ve watched episodes of “Seinfeld”) are too busy arguing to even notice him. North hires a lawyer (Jon Lovitz) and goes into court in order to divorce himself from them and search for new, loving parents. This idea is contrived enough, but the way the movie goes through with it is shocking enough (this is just the beginning)—the parents are comatose with shock after realizing what North is planning to do and are set in display in the courtroom, unable to move or speak. This leaves Alan Arkin to overact horribly as the Judge and grant North the wish to find new parents. And if North doesn’t find new parents soon, he’ll be sent to an orphanage. Are you still with me?

North interviews different sets of parents, each of them taking place in truly awful sequences (about as awful as Alan Arkin’s overacting, the courtroom scene itself, and Jason Alexander’s pants-inspecting jokes). Many talented actors are victims in these sequences—Dan Aykroyd and Reba McIntire are Texans; Kathy Bates is an Eskimo; and so on. Not only are these sequences painfully unfunny—they’re unforgivably inaccurate, and not in a funny way. Aykroyd and McIntire are Texans who dress like Cowboys on Ice and give in to nonstop stereotyping dialogue about their daily routine, which is “dig for oil, bust a few broncs, rope some doggies, and eat, eat, eat!” (There’s also a painful musical number midway through this bizarrely unfunny scene.) And whose idea was it to cast Kathy Bates as an Eskimo with blackface? There’s also a set of Hawaiian parents who give off one of the most unpleasant lines in movie history (I won’t share the line, but it has to do with why the parents can’t have children). These characters are brought in strictly to become comic caricatures. They are badly written, broad, and ultimately desperate. There is no redeeming factor to any of these characters.

I have to wonder, did the writers mean to make jokes this bad? These jokes are horrible. Consider the courtroom scene where North’s original parents are comatose with shock—their lawyer says, “The defense rests.” Is it possible the script was written by a smart computer? It would surely explain the artificiality of the writing. This is the bottom of the barrel in Hollywood screenwriting.

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention two other characters who play big roles in the movie. First, there’s Winchell, played by a nails-on-the-blackboard annoying Matthew McCurley. Winchell is the editor for the school newspaper who has become the most powerful man (or boy) in the world since North’s case hit mainstream—kids order their parents now, threatening to divorce themselves too. When North finally realizes what he must do to make things right, Winchell sends a hit man out to kill him. The other character worth mentioning is a man played by Bruce Willis. The man seems to follow North around everywhere, like a guardian angel. He appears in many forms—the Easter Bunny, a cowboy, a beach comber, an Eskimo, and a Federal Express driver (product placement plug). North believes this guy looks familiar every time he sees him. Well, he is. Is he funny? No. Is he insightful? Not for a minute.

Elijah Wood should not have been saddled to play a role that no actor could have possibly pulled off. He’s not to blame. The blame has to go to the director of the film, who is Rob Reiner. Reiner has made some terrific movies (“This is Spinal Tap,” “The Sure Thing,” “Stand by Me,” “The Princess Bride,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “Misery,” “A Few Good Men”) and must have thought “North” could have worked as a movie. But I don’t think he, nor any other gifted filmmaker, could have made this lame story idea into something enjoyable. “North” is an unholy mess, to say the least.

NOTE: This movie is so bad that I’m actually going to save you the trouble of finding that line said by the Hawaiian parents about why they can’t have children. Here it is—“Hawaii is a lush and fertile land. There’s only one barren area on our islands. Unfortunately, it’s my wife.” I feel dirty just writing that. I wonder how the screenwriter felt while writing that.

Weekend at Bernie’s (1989)

22 Mar

corpse smell of mccarthyscareer

Smith’s Verdict: *

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Any subject can be done well, but I’d imagine it’d be hard to make a comedy surrounding the idea of constantly dragging around a dead body and hiding it. Alfred Hitchcock was mildly successful with “The Trouble with Harry,” but it hardly seems like the filmmakers of the comedy based around that premise, entitled “Weekend at Bernie’s,” are trying to see what they can really do with this idea. Rather, it seems like they only see the gimmick and surround it with uninteresting (and unappealing) characters and off-hand subplots. The result is an unfunny comedy in which two guys we don’t care about drag around a dead body from place to place.

The story’s two central protagonists are two young men (Andrew McCarthy and Jonathan Silverman) who work for an insurance company. Someone is cheating the company and that “someone” is their boss named Bernie (Terry Kiser). Bernie knows that the boys know his secret and invites them to his summer home on an island to have them killed. But when Bernie is fatally poisoned, the boys, not knowing what’s happened, prop Bernie on the couch as a flow of houseguests step in for a party. But the gag is, nobody—except the boys—knows that he’s dead. (A masseuse thinks he’s just relaxed, for example.)

But it doesn’t stop there—most of the humor follows with the two guys as they continue trying to cover up Bernie’s death until they can find out exactly what is going on. And this is after a lot of scenes in which the guys want nothing to do with the body, and it just keeps popping up every now and then. For example, in a stupid subplot in which Silverman and a girl played by Catherine Mary Stewart are on an on-again/off-again (and entirely boring) relationship, they roll around on the beach and what should pop up when the tide comes in? You got it; it’s the body.

I didn’t find all the material very funny; I thought the timing was off, the jokes were predictable, it was too macabre to laugh at almost every supposed joke in this movie, I had an excuse for not laughing at. But I will be fair and admit to chuckling at a scene that involves poor Bernie being dragged by a boat. I thought that was a nice sight gag and I laughed, despite myself.

But without the working humor, there’s the boring subplot featuring the dull romance I mentioned above, an even more boring subplot involving Bernie’s killers who want to kill the two guys as well, and the two unappealing characters that we have to follow. “Weekend at Bernie’s” is just an invaluably empty film.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →