Blu-Ray Review: WITHOUT A CLUE

Starring Michael Caine, Ben Kingsley, Jeffrey Jones, Lysette Anthony, Paul Freeman. Directed by Thom Eberhardt. (1988, 107 min).
Olive Films

Without a Clue is one of those forgotten little films from the late 80s, probably playing in one of the smaller auditoriums of your local cineplex for a few weeks before quietly disappearing. Perhaps you even checked out the movie’s cast and concept and figured, “Hey, that might okay.”

And for the most part, Without a Clue is pretty good. It features Michael Caine (slowly emerging from the ‘paycheck’ era of his career) and Ben Kingsley (still relatively fresh in our minds after winning a Best Actor Oscar for Gandhi) as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Of course, Sherlock Holmes has been depicted in films since the days of Basil Rathbone, but the twist this time is that Watson (Kingsley) is the genius detective, who created Sherlock Holmes as the main character when writing about his exploits. The stories prove so popular that Watson is forced to hire an actor to become Holmes for the public. Unfortunately, the man best-suited for the role, Reginald Kincaid (Caine), is a complete idiot, not-to-mention an irresponsible, alcoholic womanizer.

MICHAEL: "The Love Guru...really?"
BEN: "The Swarm, Jaws the Revenge, Blame it on Rio...
REALLY?"

Holmes’ arch enemy, Professor Moriarty (Paul Freeman), is the main villain, but the actual plot of Without a Clue is perfunctory, meaning his appearance doesn’t amount to much. The movie mostly plays-up its role-reversal concept, leaving little room for his dastardly deeds. Aside from a few comedic story twists during the final act, most of the film focuses on Watson’s utter frustration at Kincaid’s idiocy, which is often amusing, if seldom uproarious.

While no classic, Without a Clue is a good-natured, congenial fun, with charming performances by Caine & Kingsley, who seem to be enjoying themselves here. Like many other obscure titles recently resurrected by Olive Films, this Blu-Ray release is a fun nostalgia trip for the select few who fondly remember the film.

EXTRAS: None

KITTEN CONSENSUS:

Not bad...like Cat Chow.

10 PEOPLE IT HURTS TO TALK MOVIES WITH

There’s nothing a film fan loves more than engaging in meaningful conversation about their favorite topic. Critiquing, discussing, analyzing, debating...it’s all good, at least when the one you’re talking with seems to possess an appreciation comparable to yours, even if you don‘t see everything eye-to-eye (sometimes especially if you don‘t see everything eye-to-eye).

But alas, how often do we come across somebody who obviously has no idea what they’re talking about, yet think you two are on equal ground simply because you both frequent the cinema more often than others? The more they speak, the more you realize this person doesn’t know much about movies at all.

Sure, part of the problem might be you, whose love of film extends beyond the multiplex and goes back further than a few decades. You actually read all the credits and know the creative success of a film is due more to its director or screenwriter than whether or not it stars Brad Pitt. And when you aren’t watching movies, you’re reading about them.

If this applies to you, you’re probably already aware that truly engaging conversions with another equally-fanatic film lover are few and far between (especially on the internet). More often than not, we’ve suffered people like these…

10. Those Who Think Jaws Is The Name Of The Shark

“Well, this is not a boat accident. And it wasn’t any propeller, or coral reef, and it wasn’t Jack the Ripper…it was Jaws!”

The word jaws isn’t mentioned once in the entire film. But even today, scores of folks continue referring to the shark as Jaws. The shark doesn’t have a name (though the mechanical beast used during production was nicknamed Bruce), yet how often have we heard people say something like, “I love the part when Jaws leaps onto the boat”? 

At least in the case of 1931’s Frankenstein, one can sort-of see how people can incorrectly associate the name with the monster’s iconic image. But aside from a Bond villain, a few loudmouth sportscasters and the occasional aquarium fish, nothing has ever been named Jaws.

9. Those Who Declare All Remakes Inferior To The Originals

We've all heard this kind of stuff: “How dare they remake a classic,” “No way can it top the original,” or the one currently tossed around the most, “Hollywood's run out of ideas.”

The fallacy with such a blanket statement is that remakes and reboots have been a huge part of the film business since it became a business. What do such classics as The Ten Commandments, Heat, Scarface, The Magnificent Seven, A Fistful of Dollars, The Fly, Heaven Can Wait, The Thing, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Maltese Falcon, The Departed, Ben-Hur and The Wizard of Oz all have in common? They were remakes of previous films.

Sure, many remakes (perhaps most) are vastly inferior to the originals, but the next time someone of a different generation poo-poos the latest Hollywood remake without having seen it, respectfully remind them that sometimes first doesn’t always mean best.

8. Those Who Refer To All Specials Effects As Graphics

To say a film has good graphics is like saying a newly-built home is well-hammered. While your hammer is a valuable tool, you still can’t build the whole damn house with it.

Graphics, as it applies to film, refers to the use of computer technology to create certain special effects images. Computer graphics are one special effects tool, but that doesn’t mean all special effects are graphics. Yet the term has been tossed around as though the two are synonymous, even before anyone ever heard of CGI.

When these same folks praise or ridicule a film’s ‘graphics’ (especially those produced prior to Jurassic Park), it’s a sure sign they don’t know what the hell they are talking about. Unless a computer is used to create an image, no graphics are involved, so someone using the word as a blanket term for all special effects is likely trying to sound more knowledgeable than they really are, especially those ignorant enough to scoff at the ‘graphics’ of such groundbreaking older films like King Kong and Forbidden Planet.

Speaking of which...

7. Those Who Ridicule The Special Effects Of Older Movies

The special effects in 1933’s King Kong are nothing less than spectacular. The same goes for 1927’s Metropolis, 1940’s The Thief of Bagdad, 1956’s Forbidden Planet, 1975’s Jaws and 1988’s Willow (one of the first films to utilize CGI). Are they as convincing to the eye as, say, Jurassic Park or The Lord of the Rings? Of course not, but that doesn't mean the special effects suck either. It's these old classics that made today's FX extravaganzas possible.

Scores of hapless idiots will still make fun of these films - if they even bother to watch them - without appreciating how groundbreaking they really were. In fact, the antiquated special effects (which they'll inevitably call graphics) impact whether or not they like the movie at all.

True cinema lovers don’t laugh their asses off when Kong first picks up Ann Darrow in his fuzzy paw, because they are in awe of what Merian Cooper & crew were able to accomplish in 80 years ago with the budget and resources given to them. Even in this era of anal-retentive behind-the-scenes making-of documentaries, most of us still don’t know how some of the effects in the original King Kong were accomplished.

To put this in perspective…we live in a culture where our cell phones can do more than our computers did ten years ago, but do any of us poke fun at Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the fucking phone in the first place?

Speaking of which...

6. Those Who Equate Black & White With Old And Irrelevant

Frank Darabont wrote and directed The Mist from a novella by Stephen King, and it's widely considered one of the best mainstream horror movies of this new century. Darabont originally wanted the film to be released in black & white because. While color tends to create a sense of realism for the viewer, he knows the true artistry of a film isn’t its realism…it’s the mood created by the images. We were able to put that to the test ourselves when the original DVD release of The Mist included a stark black & white version. And indeed, this already-disturbing film is rendered even darker, more surreal and fatalistic. Ironically, even the ample use of CGI looks more convincing.

Color technology has been around for over a century. Sure, in cinema’s infancy, shooting a film in black & white was usually a financial decision, as it was far easier (and cheaper) to process. But it wasn't long before it was just-as-often a creative choice. Hitchcock knew this; just try to imagine Psycho in color. Then there’s such modern films as Young Frankenstein, Schindler’s List, The Artist, Nebraska, Frankenweenie, Sin City, Ed Wood, Clerks, American History X (flashback scenes, which is over half the film), Wings Of Desire, Zelig, Raging Bull and The Elephant Man. Does anyone truly believe those movies would have been better in color?

Those unable to enjoy a film simply because the real world isn’t black & white are obviously too ignorant to grasp the artistic intentions of some of the greatest directors of all time, who sometimes choose black & white as the most effective way to tell a particular story.

5. Those Who Retro-Condemn Older Films

“Gone With The Wind is racist and justifies rape.”

Yeah, perhaps Gone With The Wind is guilty on both counts - and remains somewhat overpraised - but what exactly is the point of reassessing the entire worth of a 76 year old film with a 21st Century mindset? People obviously thought differently back then. We can scoff at their overall ignorance, when political-correctness wasn't even a term, but why do so many folks act as though a film made by these less enlightened individuals is a current crime against humanity?

Of course a lot of older films are going to seem racist, jingoistic and sexist, but none of us currently living in this Utopia of Tolerance (which is debatable) are able to travel back in time to set them straight.

People need to stop retro-condemning old movies made during a time when attitudes and values were far different than they are today. It doesn’t make them any less groundbreaking. If you are unable to appreciate a movie in the context of when it was made, you sure as hell have no business judging it.

4. Those Who Don’t Accept Contrary Opinions

“You didn't love Man of Steel? What the hell's wrong with you?”

Have you ever engaged in a conversation where the other individual is praising a film they love, then you make the mistake of sharing a different opinion and they get all up-in-arms? You’re not sure why they're so worked-up, since your view is no reflection on their tastes, but they act as though you’ve personally insulted them. Or worse yet, they think you're the idiot.

You see a lot of this on virtually every movie-related website (including this one), where an author states their opinion about a particular film and is then inundated by vicious replies from people obviously angry that their own assessment of said-film isn’t shared by all, completely ignorant to the fact that no movie ever made was universally loved by everybody.

Differences in opinion is one of the very things which make movie conversations great to begin with, whether you’re an art-house snob or one who can’t wait for the next Fast And Furious installment. Your opinion is valid, but so is that of everyone else. To condemn others because they don’t share your assessment makes you a troll.

And yes, I hated Man of Steel.

3. Those Who Hate Subtitles

“I shouldn’t have to read when I’m watching a movie.”

Is there anything more ignorant than someone who rejects a film, regardless of the genre, simply because it was shot in a different language? A subtitled film doesn’t automatically mean it’s geared toward the European art-house crowd, though theatrically, they are usually relegated to such venues.

Folks who believe this are ignorant boobs and missing out on some great shit from around the world. Even if your personal tastes lean toward explosive action, English-speaking countries don’t necessarily have a monopoly on the genre. Indonesia’s The Raid and The Raid 2 are two of the best pure action films since Die Hard.

A good foreign language film will make you forget your even reading subtitles within just a few minutes, as opposed to one dubbed into English, which is nothing but an annoying distraction.

2. Those Who Offer Their Opinion On Films They Haven't Actually Seen

It’s one thing to say a film doesn’t look like it would be your cup of tea, but quite another to condemn it sight-unseen. Sure, it’s safe to say there was always a 95% chance Transformers: Age of Extinction would suck (especially since the previous three all did), but until you’ve endured the movie yourself, you have no business debating its merits with anyone who has. After all, there's always that 5% chance Michael Bay could surprise you with a complex, thought-provoking, character-driven epic (hey, stop laughing).

Speaking of which, bashing a particular director is a great source of amusement among more pretentious movie fans, especially on the internet. But even some of Hollywood’s biggest hacks have knocked one out of the park on occasion (Bay’s 13 Hours & Paul W.S. Anderson’s Event Horizon subjectively come to mind). Similarly, some of our greatest directors have been known to screw the pooch on more than one occasion. Francis Ford Coppola helmed some of the 70’s greatest classics, yet we tend to overlook the sad fact most of his films since have been critical or commercial duds (often both). So to blindly condemn - or praise - a film you’ve never seen, strictly because of a director’s reputation, is ridiculous.

1. Those Who Equate Box Office Performance With Quality

“It must be good…look how much money it made!”

It doesn’t help that the media regularly presents weekend box office reports like sports statistics. But what's equally sad are the number of moviegoers who view these stats as gospel, basing their decision whether or not to see a particular film strictly on its box office performance, as though financial success or failure is an accurate indication of whether or not it's any good.

The ignorance of that logic must mean they'd rank such recent cinema suppositories as Transformers: Age of Extinction, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Grown Ups and the Twilight saga among the greatest films of 21st Century. Ergo, they must also believe Star Wars Episode I is the second best film in the series and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is better than Raiders of the Lost Ark. And Eddie Murphy should have been Oscar-nominated in 2006 for his performance in Norbit, not Dreamgirls.

These people are mindless sheep who probably don’t realize The Wizard of Oz was a box-office flop when initially released. So was It's a Wonderful Life, Blade Runner, The Thing (1982), The Shawshank Redemption, Bambi, Fight Club and A Christmas Story.

Anyone citing profit as an indication of a film's greatness isn't worth talking to.

THE GUNMAN: 2nd Official Trailer

THE GUNMAN starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Ray Winstone and Mark Rylance hits theaters March 20, 2015.

Blu-Ray Review: VICE (2015)

You know, that doesn't really look like Thomas
Jane, does it? 

Starring Thomas Jane, Bruce Willis, Ambyr Childers, Johnathon Schaech, Bryan Greenberg. Directed by Brian A. Miller. (2015, 96 min).
Lionsgate

A more accurate title of this film might be Déjà Vu.

Vice is a sci-fi action thriller which liberally borrows concepts, ideas and tropes from a slew of other (and better) movies, mostly the 1973 classic, Westworld, but also Blade Runner, I Robot, Robocop and perhaps a bit of Edge of Tomorrow, just to name a few. While watchable enough, Vice is pretty underwhelming and ultimately forgettable.

Bruce Willis phones-it-in as Julian Michaels, an arrogant mogul who runs an adult amusement park called Vice (looking a lot like downtown Miami), where rich tourists can visit to indulge in any behavior they wish, no matter how sleazy and violent. This includes murder, robbery & rape. There aren’t any consequences because the park is populated by Artificials, clone/robot hybrids who only think they’re human, and programmed to forget anything that previously happened to them (essentially living the same day over and over). Thomas Jane is Roy, a scraggly, renegade cop who has-it-in for Michaels because the decadent behavior in Vice has spilled out into the city where he works (the more twisted guests are apparently unable to turn off their urges).

For reasons not fully explained, one female artificial, Kelli (Ambyr Childers), suddenly becomes self-aware and able to recall every horrible act ever inflicted on her. She escapes the park into the city. Michaels sends a team of his own soldiers to hunt her down (artificials are forbidden everywhere but Vice). She’s able to repeatedly elude them because, even though armed with automatic weapons, these soldiers are such lousy shots they make Imperial Stormtroopers look like Chris Kyle. After more-than-a-few coincidences, Kelli eventually finds her original creator, then Roy manages to track down the two of them. This, of course, leads to a showdown where they try to undo Michaels’ entire operation.

"Okay, here I am. Where's my check?"

There are shoot-outs a-plenty and a lot of action, though its all fairly pedestrian. The story is predictable and extremely derivative, with a lot of “oh come on!” moments (even though Vice is touted as having the tightest security in the world, our heroes are able to sneak in and wreak havoc with little-more difficulty than passing through an airport terminal). Overall, the performances are adequate. Jane is okay, but it does sometimes seem like he’s making-up his own dialogue as he goes along (and what’s up with that hair?). Willis shows up for a paycheck to increase the movie’s marquee value, and it looks like most of his scenes were shot in a day. As Kelli, Childers probably turns in the best performance, even though little is really required of her character other than running in terror and kicking-ass when needed.

But Vice’s biggest problem is its complete lack of originality. There’s a lot of fun to be had in rip-offs when done with flair (Neil Marshall’s homage-loaded Doomsday immediately comes-to-mind). Vice isn’t a terrible movie, but there’s something amiss when main thing it accomplishes is encouraging the viewer keep score of all the previous films it rips off so liberally.

EXTRAS:

• Audio Commentary by Ambyr Childers, Bryan Greenberg & Director Brian A. Miller
• Behind the Scenes Feature
• Cast & Crew Interviews
• Trailer
• Digital Copy

FKMG RATING:

(OUT OF 5)

WESTWORLD (1973) and the Worst Job Ever

Starring Yul Brynner, James Brolin, Richard Benjamin, Majel Barrett, Dick Van Patten. Directed by Michael Crichton. (1973, 88 min).

Of all the shitty ways to make a living, working for Delos as part of the clean-up crew would have to rank among the worst.

Sometimes revisiting old films raises nagging questions which are never addressed, and the more I watch them, the more my overactive brain goes to work, obsessing over details which have no real baring on the story. I’m not talking about plot holes, but those films which, if their concepts and ideas were reality, have  me pondering the unseen ramifications. 1973’s Westworld eventually raised such a question, one I should probably be thankful isn’t answered. Still, it torments me (and probably no one else).

Westworld was the directorial debut of Michael Crichton, he of Jurassic Park fame, but best-known at the time as the author of The Andromeda Strain (adapted by Robert Wise into a terrific and disturbing film in 1970). Westworld is far less complex. Taking place in the near future, people willing to shell-out $1000 per day can vacation at Delos, an adult amusement park which consists of three distinct sections, Roman World, Medieval World and Westworld. Whatever world you choose, you can totally indulge in your every whim, no matter how decadent, which will be serviced by willing, obedient and lifelike androids.

Much of the story focuses on James Brolin and Richard Benjamin as Peter & John, two spoiled yuppies who decide to play cowboy in Westworld. They get into gunfights by day (repeatedly blowing away robot gunslinger Yul Brynner, looking exactly like he did in The Magnificent Seven, a brilliant homage) and bang saloon prostitutes by night. And while the guests are sleeping-off their debauchery, Delos’ maintenance crew gathers all the damaged robots for repairs in order to get them ready for the next day.

Because this is Michael Crichton we’re talking about (whose tales about technological terror were always his biggest sellers), something goes fatally wrong…the park’s computer system begins to malfunction, making the robots turn homicidal. In the gripping final act, The Gunslinger methodically and mercilessly stalks Richard Benjamin throughout the park.

Here you go, ladies.

Some have credited Westworld as the first sci-fi movie to depict a computer virus (long before it was even a term). The problem is even discussed by the perplexed Delos engineers as some sort of infection. Whether or not that assessment is accurate isn’t my nagging question, nor is the film’s biggest gaping plot hole, in which The Gunslinger is suddenly able to shoot guests dead (since these robots are programmed to lose every gunfight, why would you arm them with real ammunition in the first place?). Hell, I don’t even have much of a problem with Richard Benjamin’s porn-star mustache. Westworld is a lot of big, dumb fun, the kind of movie where you check your brain in at the door and, despite the fact nearly everyone in the movie dies, kinda wish a resort like Delos really existed.

But if such a place were technologically possible, the reality is it would likely be as filthy as a truck stop restroom.

Far-fetched as it may be, Westworld is arguably 100% accurate in one aspect…if creating such realistic androids was even remotely possible, the first thing most of us would want to do is fuck one. Peter & John bed-down two robo-hookers on their very first night at Westworld, probably displaying more patience than most of us would in a park where nothing is forbidden. Moral ambiguities aside, that’s not my nagging question either. Free of inhibitions, I’d likely try to nail the nearest broad in a bustier the second I stepped off the Delos shuttle.

…unless I really thought it through.

As stated before, at night is when the Delos crew comes out to repair and maintain robots while the guests are asleep. Those that have been shot, stabbed or beaten are patched up and ready for more violent mayhem.

But here’s my nagging question…

What about the robots that have spent the whole day fucking the guests? Who's stuck cleaning up the saloon hookers in Westworld or the horny chambermaids in Medieval World?

Imagine if that was your job…wiping, disinfecting and scraping out these robots of all the nasty spunk pumped into them by oversexed, middle-aged CEOs, who are probably as undiscriminating where they deposit their seed in the real world as they are at Delos. And that’s just cleaning up what the normal guys leave behind. What about those who would choose this opportunity to violate every single orifice of the female anatomy, or those who regularly include veggies or gerbils as part of their sexual diet?

Hey, robots aren't exactly disposable, so somebody’s gotta clean them up. That job would be worse than emptying the bedpans in a retirement home…at least you know what those old folks ate a few hours ago, and you’re pretty damned certain they haven’t spent the entire day as a walking sperm bank.

Watching Westworld today, I can’t get past the fact that shit ultimately rolls downhill to the one guy tasked with cleaning up bodily fluids. Any employee willing to do such a job deserves more pay than those who built the fucking park in the first place.

Right now, a few of you might be thinking to yourselves, “I wouldn’t never do such a job. I’d be one of those wealthy guests doing all the fucking…with gerbils!”

Well, if you’re fortunate enough to be in such a position of power, you’ve also likely dealt with enough underlings to know some of them do not necessarily possess the same dedication to their jobs as you do. They cling to the bottom rung of your corporate ladder and probably don’t give a flying fuck about anything but your signature on their paycheck. Do you really think folks like this care one whit about complete orifice sterilization when a simple wipe-down will be enough keep them employed for another day?

Think about that the next time you feel like sticking your Johnson into a foreign object, especially a robot.

Blu-Ray Review: THE BREAKFAST CLUB: 30th ANNIVERSARY EDITION

Starring Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Anthony Michael Hall, Ally Sheedy, Paul Gleason, John Kapelos. Directed by John Hughes. (1985, 97 min).
Universal

How time flies. The Breakfast Club is now 30 years old, and the young adults who made it a pop culture phenomenon are middle-aged, most-likely with angst-ridden teenagers of their own.

It seems like just yesterday that this film defined a decade as much as Madonna, parachute pants and wine coolers. Though this isn't writer/director John Hughes’ best film (Sixteen Candles holds that distinction), The Breakfast Club is his most iconic, and one of the first which comes-to-mind in any discussion about the 1980s. Because it’s clearly a product of its time in every conceivable way (no way could you remake it today), this 30th Anniversary Blu-Ray is worth its weight in gold for anyone who nostalgically looks back at the 80s as their golden years.

However, a funny thing happens when you watch it decades later…you notice how superficial most of these characters really are, how their issues ultimately don’t amount to much in the great scheme of things (or, as my oldest daughter would put it, First World Problems). But weren’t we all like that as teenagers…every problem a crisis, every adult an enemy? Of course we were, so when we look back at The Breakfast Club and roll our eyes at what these kids say and do, we’re really confirming that we were just as silly and melodramatic. In that respect, The Breakfast Club remains timeless, no matter the decade.

Guess who farted.

You’ll also notice what dates the film more than anything (aside from the synth-pop soundtrack) are the exaggerated comedic moments which pander to the dummies in the crowd, such as how Andy Clark (Emilio Estevez) reacts after smoking pot, or presenting Assistant Principal Vernon (Paul Gleason) as a clueless (and abusive) buffoon. Then again, this was typical of most movies aimed at teenagers in the 80s, nearly all of which owe no-small-debt to The Breakfast Club, much like every current pop-tart on the radio should worship daily at the alter of Madonna.

Dated as it may be today, The Breakfast Club provides a cinematic snapshot moment in time. Its stars (including Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson & Anthony Michael Hall) were as big and popular as they would ever be. The film’s aesthetic is a supreme example of perfect timing, appealing to the so-called ‘Me Generation’ more effectively than any other movie released that decade. It also forever-cemented John Hughes’ reputation as the primary purveyor of teen-centric cinema. Most importantly, even three decades later, The Breakfast Club is still a lot of fun.

EXTRAS:

• The Breakfast Club Trivia Track - an viewing option in which factoids frequently appear onscreen related to the film’s production or particular scene.
• 12-Part Documentary
• Audio Commentary featuring Anthony Michael Hell and Judd Nelson
• “Origins of the ‘Brat Pack’”
• Trailer
• Digital Copy

FKMG RATING:

(OUT OF 5)

KING KONG: Alternate Ending

Starring Fay Wray & Robert Armstrong. Directed by Marian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsack. (1933, 100 min).

Alternate Ending Restored by D.M. Anderson.

"Oh, no...it wasn't the planes. It was BEAUTY killed the beast."

"Well, buddy...beauty may have killed it, but beauty sure as hell ain't gonna clean it up. Grab a mop & shovel and get to work!"

Blu-Ray Review: MY GIRL and TROOP BEVERLY HILLS

It’s only fitting to review these two films together, for a couple of reasons. First, while neither is really a classic, an entire generation grew-up with them (much like their parents were raised on live-action Disney flicks in the 70s). The nostalgic value of both films is likely very high. Second, there’s sort-of a morbid fascination revisiting each of them two decades later, knowing how a few once-hopeful careers  have floundered.

MY GIRL
Starring Dan Aykroyd, Jamie Lee Curtis, Macaulay Culkin, Anna Chlumsky. Directed by Howard Zeff. (1991, 102min).
Sony Pictures

Obviously, My Girl is the more beloved of the two, and perhaps could arguably considered a classic by those first-rendered to tears by a mere movie. Admittedly, in 1991, it had been quite awhile since a film made for young adults aimed more for the heart than the gut.

While the oldies soundtrack provides a majority of the emotional heft of the film, the overall performances are still pretty decent. Aykroyd was always a better dramatic actor than many ever gave him credit for (despite earning an Oscar nomination for Driving Miss Daisy). As an emotionally-distant widower, he gives a remarkably subdued performance.

As for the two actual stars (Macaulay Culkin and Anna Chlumsky), this is where the morbid fascination kicks in. At the time My Girl was released, Culkin was the hottest child actor of his generation. The one-two punch of My Girl and Home Alone showed his remarkable range for a mere kid, before he ultimately descended into drugs and tabloid fodder. For those of us who remember that time, it’s hard not to watch My Girl today without wondering what could-have been.

Still, while My Girl approaches moments of surprising morbidity at times, it’s easy to see why the movie is held in high regard by so many who emptied-out Kleenex boxes sitting through it the first time. The same can’t be said for…

TROOP BEVERLY HILLS
Starring Shelley Long, Craig T. Nelson, Betty Thomas, Mary Gross, Stephanie Beacham. Directed by Jeff Kanew. (1989, 106 min).
Sony Pictures

Remember when Shelley Long was America’s Sweetheart as Diane Chambers in Cheers...cute as a button, a little blonde waif whose charm kept you from killing her when she became unbearably pretentious? She owed her entire career to that show (resulting in a few forgettable movies in the interim), but the first role she took after leaving Cheers for good was Troop Beverly Hills, the first film where hers was the sole name above the title.

Troop Beverly Hills is as shallow as its title suggests, little more than a repackaged variation of the movies Disney used to pump-out in the 70s (and would later pump-out again on their own cable channel). Long essentially plays a wealthy version of Diane Chambers here, before the kids show her what’s truly important in life.

This is by-the-numbers filmmaking, banking on Long’s public image and star power to attract audiences, which it did, though mostly after it came out of video. Troop Beverly Hills isn’t a terrible movie, but it is an extremely cynical one, which undoubtedly charmed enough kids who had no idea who Diane Chambers was.

From a morbidly fascinating standpoint, this was the first and last true star vehicle for Long. Other than a disturbingly spot-on depiction of Carol Brady in a few campy Brady Bunch films, she never became a bankable movie star, and she was soon back to guest-starring on other TV shows.

Still I can still see this one managing to amuse a few modern youngsters whose moms grew up with it.

FKMG RATING:

MY GIRL:1/2

TROOP BEVERLY HILLS:

Blu-Ray Review: JOHN FORD: DREAMING THE QUIET MAN

Narrated by Gabriel Byrne; featuring interviews with Maureen O’Hara, Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, Jim Sheridan. Directed by Se Merry Doyle. (2012, 92 min).
Olive Films

Show me someone who doesn’t love The Quiet Man and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t love movies. It’s the crowning achievement of director John Ford’s amazing career (and his most personal film), featuring John Wayne at his most charming, Maureen O’Hara at her most beautiful & feisty, not to mention the greatest prolonged fight scene of all time. For those who do love movies, the story behind The Quiet Man is just as captivating.

What makes John Ford: Dreaming The Quiet Man so insightful and entertaining is that it’s much more than making-of documentary. Sure, we get a lot of stories about its sometimes troubled production (most notably, amusing anecdotes from Ms. O’Hara), but also interviews with such modern directors as Peter Bogdanovich (who once wrote a book about Ford) and the great Martin Scorsese, who help us develop an even greater appreciation for how unique and influential this film really was.

Maureen O'Hara...ever the feisty red-head.

Dreaming The Quiet Man is just-as-much a biography about John Ford himself, how his life experiences, ideals and Irish upbringing influenced his filmmaking career, culminating in a movie which few in Hollywood had much faith in. One of the other charming aspects of this film are the numerous moments which revisit the small village where The Quiet Man was primarily shot. Amusingly, not much has changed, and even 60+ years later, there’s still quite a bit of tourism generated by the area’s association with this film.

Ultimately, this detailed historical documentary is a perfect companion piece to the classic film itself, making the next time you revisit The Quiet Man a richer experience. My only quip (and it’s a small one) is I wish more time was dedicated to the climactic fist-fight between Sean Thornton (Wayne) and Will Danaher (Victor McLaglen). Considering it’s the most memorable and iconic segment of the movie, we get relatively little insight into how it was put together. Other than that, Dreaming the Quiet Man, like its subject, reminds us how wonderful movies are.

If you're a fan of The Quiet Man, this is a must-own.

EXTRAS:

• NUMEROUS FEATURETTES: Original Costumes; Maureen Coyne Cashman - A Quiet Man Extra; The Quiet Man Sheepdog; May Murphy Upstages John Wayne; Jack Heanue & John Daily on the Horse Race Sequence; The Annual Quiet Man Fan Club Celebration
• Maureen O’Hara Interview
• Original Trailer

FKMG RATING:

(OUT OF 5

Blu-Ray Review: THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY, PART 1

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland. Directed by Francis Lawrence. (2014, 123 min).

Lionsgate

Legions of fans who made Mockingjay Part 1 the biggest film of 2014 may vehemently disagree, but dividing Suzanne Collins’ last Hunger Games novel into two separate films was a creative mistake. The novel (despite being more action oriented) is arguably Collins’ weakest of the entire trilogy, adding little to the themes, character development and plot-turns established in the first two books. 

The entire story of Mockingjay could have easily been adapted into a single action-packed film with an even shorter running time than Part 1 alone. Instead, the first half has been adapted as sort-of a transitional episode, unnecessarily padded-out to feature length while still feeling like only half a movie. It’s just as relentlessly faithful to the novel as The Hunger Games and Catching Fire, but it’s also agonizingly slow at times, with relatively little real action for nearly an hour (and then only in fits and starts). Many key scenes, which comprised only a few pages of internal monologue in the novel before soldiering forward, now drag on endlessly, long after we've gotten the point.

"Hey guys...that's not how you deep-fry a turkey."

Still, these complaints can easily be seen as virtues by those who don’t want the Hunger Games saga to end. Milking the final chapter for all its worth means we get a lot more of Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen, who once-again shines in this role and manages to maintain interest even when there isn’t a hell of a lot going on. A few new characters are also introduced, some more interesting than others, such as Cressida (Natalie Dormer), a tattooed rebel who joins with Katniss for the uprising against the Capitol. Overall, the performances are once-again top-notch (though adding to the overall melancholy tone is seeing the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman in one of his last roles).

Visually and thematically, Mockingjay Part 1 is the darkest entry in the franchise. For a PG-13 film, it pulls relatively few punches in its depiction of human suffering, to the point we’re almost counting on Part 2 to alleviate our misery. In fact, the movie plays like one long set-up, stringing us along with the promise of a slam-bang finish. I suppose, in the context of the entire saga, that’s exactly how we’re intended to view Mockingjay Part 1...a dramatic pause before the big (and inevitable) fiery finale. If so, I certainly hope it is worth the wait.

That is inherently the biggest problem with Mockingjay Part 1, even regarding its place in the overall franchise. Unlike, say, The Two Towers or The Empire Strikes Back, there is absolutely zero attempt at making a complete film (just in case audience interest wanes). Hell, it doesn’t even end with a cliffhanger, just the conceit that Part 2 will ultimately justify this prolonged, two-hour tease of a movie.

As it stands, Mockingjay Part 1 is arguably be the most incomplete feature-length film of all time. You’ll be completely lost if you haven’t seen The Hunger Games & Catching Fire, and its creative success depends entirely on your anticipation that Mockingjay Part 2 will knock your socks off. Those of you already onboard will may argue otherwise, but The Hunger Games franchise really only needed to be three films, one per book. Prolonging the inevitable end, for whatever reason, lessens the overall dramatic impact of the entire trilogy.

EXTRAS: 

• Documentary: “The Mockingjay Lives: The Making of MJ1”
• Featurettes: “Straight from the Heart: A Tribute to Philip Seymour Hoffman”; “Songs of Rebellion: Lorde on Curating the Soundtrack”
• Music Video: “Yellow Flicker Beat,” by Lorde
• Deleted Scenes
• Audio Commentary by Director Francis Lawrence & Co-Producer Nina Jacobson
• Extended Preview of Insurgent
• DVD & Digital Copies

FKMG RATING:

1/2

(OUT OF 5)