1983

National Lampoon’s Vacation Review

November 30, 2017 by JD Hansel

I think road trip movies are among the most challenging to write. There’s usually very little sense that the events of these films must occur, or that they must occur in the order in which they do, which tends to make everything feel arbitrary. This, in turn, can make for a very weak movie – unless the comedy is strong. Unfortunately, and much to my surprise, the comedy isn’t strong here.

I think I only laughed a handful of times throughout the film – maybe four – and I’m not sure how that’s possible from John Hughes. The key difference between this film and Hughes’ better work seems to be that he usually features very likable main characters. The characters in this film are jerks, so I don’t enjoy watching them. I also felt throughout that much of the humor was relying on highly judgmental stereotypes of people and places, so I find the film somewhat offensive.

That being said, the best case I can make for the film is actually related to the aspects to which I take offense. I think it has a lot of what I call “cultural utility.” It’s a very useful film in that it can be used to understand American culture better. It’s very rare to see a depiction of the white American middle class that so perfectly captures its hatred of white trash, its sexual tensions, its struggles to embody the ideas we have of what the white middle class should be, its racist fears, its respect for religions it doesn’t understand, and its all-around pathetic insanity. For anyone outside the United States who wants to understand why and how Americans seems so crazy, watching this film is a good place to start.

Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life Review

October 3, 2016 by JD Hansel

This is it – the last film in the Monty Python “Holy Trinity” – and it’s certainly the weirdest.

Its “prologue” is the worst part, and it is very clearly directed by Terry Gilliam. I have mixed feelings about Gilliam, and I think this short is a good example of what bugs me about his work. Somewhere between the films of Terry Gilliam and the books of Roald Dahl is the land of “Semi-Horrific, Mildly Comedic, Awkward Whimsy,” or “SHMCAW” for short. Shmcaw is my least favorite thing in cinema, or at least it’s up there. This is that nauseating feeling I have when a film presents uncomfortable dehumanizing in a whimsical way, causing my face to scrunch up. It happens in Prisoner of Azkaban when Harry’s aunt inflates, and all throughout The Witches, and it happens in The Crimson Permanent Assurance when we’re supposed to laugh at random businessmen being forced to jump out of a building to their deaths by delighted elderly folks. The whole thing just feels wrong, but I will not detract any points from my rating, because this is the short feature that plays before the main feature, and Wikipedia gives it a separate article as its own short film, but I felt the need to mention it because it is (in some respects) inseparable from the film.

There is very little for me to say for the film itself. I think that it offers much of the kind of comedy I expected, but its main focus seems to be doing whatever any other directing, production company, writers, or group of performers would never, ever, ever be allowed to do in a film distributed by Hollywood. It breaks rules of cinema that no one ever invented – there was no concept of a rule against showing a man in an elephant suit for no reason, or devoting half the movie to unimportant fish for no reason, or giving an impossibly fat man who vomits profusely and eats until he explodes his own scene for no reason. Monty Python made up rules to break, all in the spirit of giddy, childlike (or perhaps childish) fun. There is, however, the question of purpose – Life of Brian has good reasoning behind its scenes, with an important message, but why does this film need to exist? Is it merely here to weird out the audience as much as possible?

Personally, I’d prefer to see more sense to the senselessness, more logic to the lunacy, and more method to the madness, but that is not what the film is for. Many have said before that it is essentially an extended episode of Flying Circus, and that’s what it feels like to me. It is not their best film, but it is pretty good, with several, several moments that continue to pop up in my head many weeks every watching the film, and they continue to give me a chuckle. The music is some of Python’s best, making for a very enjoyable soundtrack. This movie offers a fair mix of some of the best and the worst that Python has to offer, but by the 1980s, the Pythoners had learned how to ensure that their worst was still rather fun.

A Christmas Story Review

December 27, 2014 by JD Hansel

I meant to have this up by Christmas day, but unfortunately I got very sick, and wasn’t up for writing anything. Also, I would have a spoiler warning, but it seems there is no need since everyone has seen this movie before. As many have noted before me, everyone has livedthis movie before. It effectively captures the experience of being a child during Christmas time, while also adding elements that are plausible or desirable, which fit in perfectly. This is one of those great movies that should not work, and yet it does. The plot is loosely connected, the protagonist’s goal is unimportant, the pacing is odd, and there are interruptions (daydreams) periodically – and it still works well.

There are flaws, however. I am always bothered when family films, particularly those clearly inviting children to watch them, contain elements that may not be appropriate for children, and this movie does have that. A lot of the jokes are rather weak, which would be bearable if the jokes kept coming constantly, but the film is actually pretty slow. It is difficult for me to stay focused on the film since it has a pace that is bordering on too slow for me and my ADD. The unconventional structure also makes it hard to stay into, but that can only be prevented to some degree since the nature of the story is purely a child’s Christmas experience. I also have issues with the film purely because I can’t totally relate. I didn’t want a gun as a kid, nor did I get bullied, or get bad grades, or lie much really.

Still, I understand why this is a Christmas classic. It’s just not one of my favorite Christmas classics.