1990s Movie Reviews

Bowfinger Review

July 31, 2016 by JD Hansel

Frank is the best Frank that’s ever happened to me.

There are a few master craftsmen in the world of film direction that are rarely recognized as such, making for cranky rants from snobby movie buffs like me. Generally, if a filmmaker is good at getting good reviews, and has done some memorable work, people associate his or her name with his/her film-making. Frank Oz, on the other hand, has had quite the career as a director, and yet this is largely overshadowed by his time spent as a Muppet performer back in the day. Seeing as how I am one of the geeky “Hensonites” who just adores the various skills that Frank has, it is important to me that people appreciate both his work as a puppeteer and as a director. So, I’m adding his to my Missionary List – the list of movies I promise to spread the word about at any opportunity like a missionary shares the gospel – where it will join the ranks of other underrated triumphs like Phantom of the Paradise, The Twelve Chairs, Play It Again, Sam, and even the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup.

This is one of those movies that is done in such a careful way, with such remarkable precision, that the knowledgeable spectator will be constantly aware that he/she is watching a master at work. It’s special when a film carries an aura of craftsmanship that is always present, but never too disruptive of the feelings that the spectator is supposed to be experiencing. The jokes, overall, do work well, even though I think that the same screenplay – perhaps eve with the same cast – could have made for a mediocre movie. Heck, it would even be easy to hate the main character for being so sleazy. Frank seems to be the element that makes everything about the film work the way it’s meant to, from the pacing to the mood.

While it’s not necessarily the funniest film I’ve ever watched, it has a number of very strong comedic moments, and is pleasant and fun throughout. The performances from Steve Martin and Eddy Murphy are some of their best, and the story is written very cleverly with a smart resolution and satisfying ending. It also has the benefit of being both a good movie on first-viewing and a good “Hindsight Movie” – a film that becomes more enjoyable when thinking about it in retrospect, or when watching it again. I suspect this may not be uncommon for Oz films, since I really liked Little Shop of Horrors the first time I saw it, but over the years I have grown to obsess over it, and it has become a big part of who I am. I can’t say for sure that I’ll ever love Bowfinger on a level that’s very close to how much I love Little Shop, but I can say that this is a movie I’ll happily sit down and watch again with whoever would be willing to join me.

If anyone is ever in need of a fun comedy film for movie night, this is one of my top recommendations.

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape Review

July 18, 2016 by JD Hansel

Some of my readers – if I may presume I have readers – may be aware that I have three younger brothers. The oldest of the three is Brian, who has down-syndrome, which has made my family’s dynamic an interesting one. As of the time I’m writing this, he’s eighteen years old, and he adds a lot of joy to the family, although he also adds some challenges that we wouldn’t have with a more ordinary teenager. Brian, however, is not the reason I watched this movie. I watched it because of my youngest brother, Grayson, who insisted that I watch it with him. For whatever reason, he adored the movie, but as is common for him, he couldn’t explain why. I was willing to humor him and watch it since it had such critical acclaim, but it unfortunately strikes me as the average “critic porn.”

I have so little to say about this movie because the movie gives me so little to review. What’s actually accomplished by the events of this film? How is the ending necessitated? How does it even make sense? Where do they even live in the end? What the heck was the point of the plotline with FoodLand? Oh, and the other question – why do I care?

I don’t understand what substance Johnny Depp’s character has that’s supposed to make me like him or root for him. I also don’t understand why I’m supposed to like the girl that he likes. When she says the line, “I’m not into that whole ‘external beauty’ thing,” I immediately dismiss her as the kind of pseudo-intellectual hipster that’s not worth my time. So why is she worth the screen time? And if I’m really supposed to care about her, how does the movie expect me to be satisfied with an ending in which she only sees our main characters for a couple months of the year?

What I think I understand is why it’s received such acclaim. The acting is good, considering what the characters are. I have to give credit to Leonardo DiCaprio for his excellent performance, but of course good acting is never the best measure of a film. The “story” is fairly interesting, and I must credit the film for keeping me from getting too bored, which could have happened easily with a film in this genre. It obviously deals with a tricky subject matter, which always gets the attention of the critics, but even with how similar my experiences with my family can be to the experiences of the family in this film, I just don’t care enough about the family to really enjoy the movie. I get what it’s trying to do, and it does that well, but I would never try to do what it’s trying to do, simply because I don’t care for Oscarbait.

Anastasia Review

January 26, 2016 by JD Hansel

It’s not a documentary. With this type of film, the old saying from Mystery Science Theater 3000 rings true: “Repeat to yourself, ‘It’s just a show; I should really just relax.'” This is the kind of movie that will mean very, very different things to different people, since a historian would be disgusted, but an art student would be impressed, while a composer would be disappointed. Unfortunately, this movie doesn’t mean very much to me, which makes it rather hard to review. I suspect that I feel this way purely because the movie is so normal and ordinary for its genre.

The visuals and animation are, as one would expect from Gary Goldman and Don Bluth, really quite impressive, particularly during the more villainous scenes. However, the visual style still has that feeling of imitating the ’90s Disney look, even right down to copying the shade of green that tends to appear around Disney villains for the scenes with Rasputin. Also, one can expect to find an all-star cast in these films, with an iconic voice for the villain, and Christopher Lloyd provides more than one could ever wish for in a villain. The music is outstandingly standard and ordinary that I can hardly remember any of it now. There are also some aspects of the storyline that have been done to death in family films, and they need to be put to rest – I’m looking at you, “character who leaves the person who cares about him/her because he/she feels unwanted and unworthy in the end.”

That being said, it’s not an unpleasant movie. The characters and story kept me entertained, and some of the artwork kept me entranced. I do wish the soundtrack could have been better, but Rasputin’s big musical number is actually a pretty strong (and unique) villain song, with many thanks to the work of Jim Cummings. The premise alone is one with built-in comedy, and it feels very reminiscent of Mel Brook’s original Producers film. In short, it’s not quite on the same level as many of the Disney pictures from the time, or the same level as many of Bluth’s best works, but I do think it’s a good enough film for the family to have a good time.

Home Alone Review

December 27, 2015 by JD Hansel

Let’s just pretend, hypothetically speaking, that everyone reading this has seen at least some amount of Home Alone during this holiday season. Now let’s stop pretending. It’s as much a reality as the fact that the Sun is bright. This has always intrigued me, but it was not until days ago that I actually got to watch this film in full. Now I think I understand what makes it such a holiday classic.

This is one of the those rare films that reverts me to a stage in my childhood when I was trying to figure out who I wanted to be, and basically, I wanted to be someone like Kevin McCallister. I wanted to be Bugs Bunny too, and Spider-Man, and sometimes even Lizzie McGuire’s brother Matt, but the important thing was never the species, the age, or the powers. It was always the competence. I loved the idea of a character who could always come up with brilliant ideas and creative solutions to problems, and because of this, he approached every situation with a delightful sense of humor and a touch of nonchalance. This movie shows Kevin McCallister taking initiative, fending for himself, conquering his fears, protecting that for which he is responsible, cleverly taking advantage of everything at his disposal to use for creative purposes, and even knowing when to call authorities. There’s much to like about this kid, and I think everybody wants to be him.

I think there are other reasons why this is considered a classic, and much of this is due to the brilliant writing by John Hughes and charming directing by Chris Columbus. While it would be easy to make a film that only focuses on the values of caring about family, this movie takes advantage of everything that can be done with a story of this nature. It makes the family seem really difficult to live with, and it makes the struggle for the mother to get back home seem really difficult, and it makes Kevin thwarting the bandits with household objects seem really clever, while also packing on a bunch of great messages for a Christmas film. Everything about it feels right for a children’s Christmas movie, and I approve of its status as a classic. It may not be Muppet Christmas Carol or Gremlins, but I always knew I could count on Hughes and Columbus to blow Elf out of the water.

Boogie Nights Review

December 16, 2015 by JD Hansel

Interesting is an interesting word.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1997 hit film Boogie Nights was terribly difficult for me to watch to the finish. I watched the film in pieces over a period of about two weeks, which is the longest I’ve ever dragged out any of my cinematic experiences without watching another movie before finishing. Now, this is in part because I’ve been absurdly busy lately, and I’ve had no time to watch movies, but it’s partly because the film is not very interesting. I had to make it through to the end of the film, however, because it’s very interesting. This is why the word interesting is so tricky.

Boogie Nights has a story structure that’s not very JD-friendly. The fact that the last portion of the film (which would ordinarily be used for a very important climax) was actually entitled, “Long Way Down (One Last Thing)” reveals that the scenes shown to us are not scenes that are necessary for a plot, but are instead whatever portions of the lives of these characters the director feels like depicting. This gives the film a serious case of “And-Then” Syndrome, an issue that’s chastised by writers of several different productions (ranging from PIXAR to South Park) for being the guaranteed way to generate apathy. For me, this is the kind of movie that leaves me with a blank expression on my face asking, “so… what’s your point?” There’s not much to gain from a film that gives off vibes of “just being there,” and I find it dreadfully tedious.

On the other hand, I do find the characters quite interesting, and characters are nearly half of the essence of a story. I did want to know if Dirk was going to be a success, and if Amber was going to get to see her kid, and if Jack was going to find a way to stay afloat in the midst of new trends in the industry. That being said, I wasn’t exactly on the edge of my seat waiting for the big reveal, because I knew there was no big reveal. There was no moral of the story, no global implications, and no point – everything is presented matter-of-factly for anyone who’s curious about the field. This, I think, it was it comes down to: the film is not interesting in the sense of keeping the audience invested and on the edge of their seats, but rather, its unique qualities persist to arouse curiosity, which is the kind of interesting at which this picture excels.

So, while it may not be my kind of film, I do think that, for the kind of film it is, it is done very impressively. The cast is outstanding, and it is because of the cast that the characters keep us curious. The soundtrack is one of the best that any movie has ever had, and the ’70s are captured brilliantly. Even though the story does not appeal to me, and I probably wouldn’t recommend it to hardly anyone I know, I have to respect it for being so well done. Also, Burt Reynolds’ character in this movie is just too darn likable.

The Witches Review

October 31, 2015 by JD Hansel

Freaking Roald Dahl.

This article could be focused on any of a few potential rants about this writer. It is no secret that children’s authors always seem to end up being very . . . difficult people (for lack of a better term), and in a way, Dahl was to Henson what Travers was to Disney. I could just give Dahl a hard time for being a pain to poor Jim, but that’s not good for a review. I could instead choose the more obvious rant about how awful it is to make a profession out of terrifying children, but the problem with that is simply that children sometimes like to be scared. I think it was Walt Disney who said, when accused of making the villains in his animated films to scary, that children enjoy it if they can peek through their parents’ fingers. For this reason, I am not against putting a good scare in a children’s film.

My bone to pick with Dahl is a problem with a particular type of scare that is not necessarily limited to stories for children (although that is the genre in which it’s most common): The Awkward Terror. The Awkward Terror is what I call those moments when there is a misunderstanding concerning the way one should respond to a bad scenario, but rather than making it into awkward comedy, it’s played as horror. Don’t get me wrong – discomfort has an important place in storytelling: when done in comedy, it leads to the awkward realization that the character forgot to wear pants, and when done in drama, it leads to a good scare when the shadow of a man with a knife is on the shower curtain. However, when an uncomfortably awkward situation (one in which people can’t figure out how to respond appropriately) meets the uncomfortably chilling spook, I have found that the different types of enjoyment that come from these discomforts cancel each other out, leaving me only uncomfortable with no element of fun.

Now it’s example time. In an episode of R. L. Stine’s The Haunting Hour, a boy finds himself in a circus tent dressed as a clown, unable to remove his makeup or attire. As several other clowns surround the boy (who has always had a fear of clowns) he finds his parents there, and rather than displaying the appropriate response of feeling bad for him, they gleefully take off their human disguise to reveal that the boy and his family have always been members of the clown species. This is terribly awkward as there is no comprehensible response to someone realizing he’s turned into a clown, just as I would not know how to react if someone standing in front of me were to suddenly become a fruit. There is no reaction to such a bizarre, unnatural phenomenon, and one would be foolish to expect people to enjoy seeing a spectacle like someone turning into a fruit.

Roald Dahl is stupid enough to turn someone into a fruit. Not in The Witches, of course, but in his more famous book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, in which Violet memorably becomes a giant blueberry. If everyone in the scene responded with sheer terror and tried to save her right away, perhaps the scene could have worked better, but the way people just stand there confusedly as Wonka remains calm and the Oompa Loompas sing in a circle around her makes me squeamish to this day. Not in a fun, spooky way – in a way that’s just nauseating. This is the kind of thing Dahl does often that rubs me the wrong way, so I should have known I would dislike the film adaptation of his book that’s practically an ode to the Awkward Terror, The Witches.

Imagine if a whole movie was centered around something as awkward as a person turning into a fruit, but instead of being in a setting of fantasy (in which it might almost be permissible), it’s set in a realistic, normal, everyday place. That is what Witches is all about: a boy goes to a hotel where he is turned into a mouse. When different characters see these mice that used to be the boys they loved, their reactions are inevitably incorrect no matter what they are since there cannot be a realistic reaction to such an intangible scenario, which is a clear sign that this whole concept should have been avoided altogether. It makes the entire film both uncomfortable and unbelievable, without offering a strong plot, strong characters, strong dialogue, or strong morals to make up for it.

To get to the point of this review, the film is a waste of time. It seems that there are some Henson productions that Muppet fans joke about because of how odd they are, and others that we simply do not address. Although this is the last film for which Henson was a producer of any sort, he’d had so little involvement in the story that he couldn’t save it, so we Henson fans honestly never give it as much thought as we give The Jim Henson Hour, or even his failed Little Mermaid series. I cannot fathom how anyone could enjoy a film so tedious that it doesn’t get to its inciting incident until halfway through the running time, so dull that it makes Rowan Atkinson’s character a bore, and so idiotic in theme that I cannot believe it was ever released. If this flick is watched for any reason, it should be watched for the puppetry, effects, and other excellent elements of the visual style that make this film wickedly impressive as visual art (which is what earned the film as many stars as I’ve given it). While critics may praise it on the grounds that it will give children quite a scare, I berate it because it offers a big scare instead of a good scare. If a movie wants to scare people, it should make sure the emotion it’s grabbing is fear, not disgust.