Roadtrip & Buddy Comedies

Superbad Review

December 17, 2017 by JD Hansel

At least the title is honest.

Every now and again, I watch a movie because my friend makes me, and this was that. It’s just not my kind of thing – plain and simple. I don’t care about these characters. They annoy me. They could be shot with lasers, sent back in time, elected president, probed by aliens, trained in martial arts by dinosaurs, shaven bald by a horny Mickey Mouse, abducted by a cult that worships Billy Mays, and/or eaten by the Lollipop Guild, and I would not care. So why should I care about their less interesting lives? And during those brief moments when I do care, the film is more painful than funny, triggering all my social anxieties and making me want to die.

The problem, unfortunately, is that it has too many redeeming qualities for me to dismiss it entirely. The stupid police officers are amazingly rather funny at times, and Emma Stone absolutely steals the show. Her performance near the end slays me. Honestly, had the film been more about the girls, it would have been better by leaps and bounds. That’s all it would take.

I’m rather confused about the presence of the 1970s. Somehow, the film seems to take place in two decades at once, without explanation. 1970s music makes appearances in various forms – although the scene with the best use of older music features “These Eyes,” which is from the late 1960s – and there are ‘70s pop culture references on T-shirts throughout. The opening, however, is the part that screams 1970s, and it is a brilliant opening credits sequence – one of the best I’ve ever seen. It’s a shame the rest of the film couldn’t maintain that level of quality.

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.

It Happened One Night Review

November 8, 2016 by JD Hansel

It’s an interesting sign of how times have changed to see that this was the “Best Picture” winner at the Oscars back in the mid-1930s. This film would probably be dismissed today as a fairly average romantic comedy, but it actually was sort of novel at the time. The notion of the “re-marriage comedy” as a sub-genre didn’t really exist before this film appeared, and director Frank Capra ended up solidifying elements of the romantic comedy (and arguably the screwball comedy) that would stick around to this day. The story and characters are simple, and much of the film is predictable, but between the clever writing and the great performance given by Clark Gable, it still manages to be highly entertaining. It’s easy to get tired of the old stereotype of the obnoxious, arrogant, manipulative man forcing himself into the woman’s life until she falls in love with him, but Gable makes the character likable, and even made the character so clever and funny that he became an influence on the comedy of Bugs Bunny. The pacing is nice and speedy, and the witty dialogue exchanges are often so fast that they make today’s films and TV shows seem sluggish in comparison (and at the very least they rival the clever dialogue exchanges in the Smith/Coleman years of Doctor Who). It’s not my favorite film, but it’s a smart, masterful, influential, and exemplary film.

A Night at the Roxbury Review

June 26, 2015 by JD Hansel

I thought it would be interesting to follow up my review of Blues Brothers with a review of another SNL spin-off, so I chose Roxbury since I enjoy the old “What Is Love” sketch. I went into the film expecting a weak, virtually plotless story about detestable characters, and perhaps it was my low expectations that allowed me to kind of enjoy the film. I could tell I was watching no masterpiece, but it was surprisingly easier to watch than Blues Brothers. Why? It was simple.

I’m all for movies that get a bit complex in terms of story structure and details, such asCLUE in terms of a detailed screenplay or Pulp Fiction in terms of a unique story structure. The problems occur when a movie is more wrapped up in details and complexity than it is in showing/telling the plot. The Dark Crystal suffers from this, although I still respect it deeply, and I wonder if Blues Brothers is in a similar category. Blues Brothers is hard to follow only because it seems to forget where it’s going, and there is something unsettling about following an unfocused movie. After all, a filmmaker is, to a large extent, the tour guide through an unknown world, and it’s a little disrespectful to the tour group to wander about aimlessly instead of focusing on what the tourists came to see. (I am unwavering in my conviction that audiences don’t go to theaters to see films, but rather to experience stories, so I naturally propose that the story ought to be the focus of nearly every movie.)

While I do not mean for this to become another review of Blues Brothers, I think the comparison is important to me because of how much easier it was to watch Roxbury, if only because it was more focused. I know on an intellectual level that Roxbury is a weaker film, but it felt easier to watch, and I think that’s where simplicity and focus come into play. It’s pretty clear from near the beginning that the story is simply two idiots trying to get into a nightclub, and I suppose Blues Brothers has a story with about the same simplicity. The difference is that Roxbury is only about 80 minutes long, whereas Blues Brothers, which could have been the same length, is over two hours long. Roxbury was kind enough to get to its point … the problem is, it doesn’t have much of a point.

It’s severely lacking in humor, and some critics have gone as far as to say that the film only has one joke: the protagonists are idiots. I contest, as I think the butt-touching gag was fun, but it’s not good when the best joke in the film is butt-touching. I didn’t hate the protagonists as much as I thought I would since there seems to be some kind of innocence about them. They clearly just never grew out of middle school, and they very much reminded me of my younger self, so I was able to empathize with the characters. I honestly was routing for them, wondering how the story and conflicts would all be resolved, which I suppose means it didn’t fail as a movie. It just failed as a comedy, and certainly did not reach the heights of the comedy films I most enjoy. I certainly don’t hate the film, since it is basically harmless; I just think it’s best for the viewer to be doing something else to keep his/her mind busy while it’s on, lest the mind be weakened by the stupid.

The Blues Brothers Review

June 21, 2015 by JD Hansel

I must confess that I’m a little disappointed in this one. Having heard such great things about it for so long, I was hoping for a very exciting comedy, but instead got a strangely-paced artsy musical. I enjoy musicals a lot, so I had a good time during the musical sequences, but the rest of the film felt kind of pointless. The story may not actually be as weak as it felt to me personally – it might just not be my kind of story – but something about the pace of the thing is certainly off, and there’s something else missing that kept the story from being interesting. Unfortunately, I can’t put my finger on what that missing element is.

I know I like the actors’ performances, and the characters were fine. The music was good, but the humor was lacking. I’m okay with a movie that’s lacking in humor, so long as it has good drama, like in The Graduate. I really love a great soundtrack, which is what makes it difficult for me to be as hard on this film as I think I ought. What my problem boils down to is the fact that I don’t believe a film should be considered great purely on the grounds of its visuals or music if the story is weak. (I even go so far as to argue with the saying that “film is a visual medium” – I say it’s a storytelling medium, and if the particular story being told requires the audio to lead and the visuals to follow, so be it.) So, am I willing to own up to my claims and condemn the film of mediocrity in spite of its soundtrack?

Well, the music isn’t the only thing I like about it. There’s a really neat atmosphere that I think is unique to the film, and Landis adds a special vibe somehow that creates a very “bluesy” feeling. Landis also shows off his Muppet fandom with a part played by Frank Oz, and a heck of a lot of Muppet merch in one scene, which I just adore. There is ample cleverness throughout in both the circumstances that arise and the way they’re handled, but I still get too much of a Pee Wee’s Big Adventure feeling from the writing. The fun cameos by great performers reminded me very much of my favorite movie, The Muppet Movie, which made this movie even more fascinating. The film really impressed me with its visuals, as I think it’s a very, very well-shot film, so I’d recommend it to anyone with an interest in cinematography.

Yes, there is a lot to like about it, but it somehow just didn’t quite grab me. (This may have something to do with the fact that, from what I’ve read, Aykroyd had written an unconventional, dysfunctional script that had to be reworked by Landis.) In the end, it was a movie I felt like I could just stop watching midway without missing much. Finishing it felt like a chore. That’s not a good sign. So, in spite of all its strengths, I can’t give this the high rating other critics/historians do because it fails at simply holding my attention.

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Review

December 1, 2014 by JD Hansel

Boy, is this a tricky one to review. I saw this movie for my first time this past Thanksgiving night on Netflix, and I had no idea it was a Thanksgiving movie until I started watching! I love coincidences like that, but in movies, coincidences have to be handled very carefully (segue, segue, segue). Planes, Trains, and Automobiles does a remarkable job at playing up the absurdities of its continuous coincidences, and making the disastrous circumstances as funny as possible. From a writing standpoint, it is a very well-built film, which is uncommon for a movie that is essentially a series of things going awry. The acting from Steve Martin and John Candy, who were on top of their game in this film, is perfect. The film also has some great attention to detail, cool shots, fun cameos, and a very nice ending.

The problem that I have with it, however, is that it requires laughing at the suffering of the protagonist. One could argue that laughing at the pain of others is the essence of comedy, but as Mel Brooks said, “Tragedy is when I cut my finger; comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.” In other words, if something bad happens to you, it’s tragic from your perspective, but funny from mine. Similarly, in television, film, and other media, it is easier to laugh at the suffering of those with whom we do not identify. Since this movie made me empathize with the main characters, it was difficult for me to laugh when they were suffering because I “felt their pain.” So, I found the movie kind of uncomfortable.

Regardless, I am impressed with the film and its ability to take a rather common kind of comedy story, and make a special one of a very high caliber. It’s just what one would expect from John Hughes.