Essential Classics

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.

This Is Spinal Tap Review

June 18, 2015 by JD Hansel

I don’t review documentaries. I just wouldn’t know how. Generally speaking, the world of film production can be split into two career paths: documentary and narrative. The difference is actually pretty big since it is the role of the narrative filmmaker to tell a cohesive narrative story with a plot, whereas the documentary filmmaker has to find an interesting way to document history, which generally includes a story of sorts. Because of this, a documentary can be done in many different ways, and most of them are valid, just as long as the information being conveyed is accurate and/or expressed effectively. To me, that makes a documentary harder to judge. Add this to the fact that the writers have limited control over the story since it’s based on reality, and the fact that a lot of documentaries are made for television (while I only do theatrical releases), and it should be pretty clear why I can’t bring myself to review the docs I watch.

Then there’s This Is Spinal Tap, which is a scripted story with fictional characters, making it more like a narrative, but it’s done in a documentary style. Those in the know refer to this as a mockumentary, although this film calls itself a “rockumentary” because it concerns the lives of members of a hard rock group in the 1980s. There’s actually very little story, and it seems more like a compilation of SNL-like sketches than a real movie, but that’s where the documentary style really helps. When I watch a documentary – especially one that’s largely just following musicians around – I don’t expect plot. I just expect to learn about interesting characters, which is what this film provides.

One of the rules I have for movies is that it should be difficult to watch broken up over a span of days. Ideally, I should hate to pause the movie for a second (if I’m seeing it first viewing). If I wouldn’t mind pausing it to go watch something else, coming back to the film to watch the rest the following week, that’s usually a sign that the story isn’t right. This film, which I felt fine with pausing, can get away with it because it’s simply understood that the story isn’t the point – the only goal is to get laughs. Thankfully, the film meets that goal, although I did not laugh as much as I wanted to. Instead of laughter of various degrees throughout the film, I actually had a few really big laughs during specific, spaced out parts of the film. Most of the times when I was not getting a good laugh felt like filler, but I may have just been missing the parody of other music documentaries at the time. Either way, this mockumentary is a good time, and I highly recommend it to fans of documentaries, rock music history, or comedy in general.

(Monty Python’s) Life of Brian Review

June 2, 2015 by JD Hansel

This film is not sacrilegious. This film is not about Jesus. It is about the importance of rationally thinking for oneself rather than just accepting what others say is true. It mocks group think, pokes fun at activists, and challenges people to be critical thinkers, making it very much the skeptic’s film. In fact, Pythoner John Cleese has said that a number of Christians have told him how much they enjoyed the film, because they understood that making fun of religion is not the point. Cleese has also gone on record saying that he has always thought Life of Brian would be considered the best Python film ever made, but I have to ask myself, would I say such a thing? Well, let’s analyze the story, characters, and comedy, comparing it to what has been my favorite of the Python productions, Holy Grail.

In terms of story, Brian works better. Its story has far more structure to it, and the plot is more conflict driven, with a narrative that would work well even if it was not a comedy piece. The pace is actually a little slow, but it’s still a very interesting story on the whole. The main character, Brian, has much more reality than King Arthur, making for more investment in a relatable character. This also lends itself to a great comedic situation as Brian is a voice of reason in a world of lunatics, and no one really listens to him. Also, the supporting characters are fun, will-written, and performed excellently, but this film is still not as fun or funny as I had hoped.

There was little to make me fall out of my chair laughing, but most of the movie did manage to put a smile on my face or get a chuckle out of me. Part of the problem was the culture-specific jokes throughout, such as the parody of the British political activist groups at the time, and the jokes based on the Pythoners’ mutual experience with learning Latin in school – something that is not as common in the US. In a way, the film is more of a tragicomedy than a comedy, largely because the audience cares a bit too much for Brian to be okay with his suffering (or at least I did). I tend to be very empathetic concerning movie characters I like, so I was legitimately happy when Brian was happy, but in turn, some of what he dealt with was hard to watch. Particularly the stupid people who didn’t really listen to him no matter how well he communicated – I knew I was supposed to laugh, and I suppose I did some, but I couldn’t help but empathize with his misery too much.

Comedy is a tricky thing since it requires keeping people interested in what the characters endure without letting them get too invested. So, in the end, I do not find Life of Brian to be their funniest film. I do, however, think it’s Monty Python’s most important film. I cannot help but respect this movie immensely for making a piece that helps us see why we must be critical thinkers, while making us smile at giggle at the same time. This film serves as a perfect example of how to make a message movie: its focus is on a strong character in an interesting situation; it makes it clear that this is not our world, but rather an absurd variation on our world; it is not at all preachy, but instead puts fun first; the audience is left smiling, but still thinking about the nature of humanity.

For this reason, I highly recommend the film to everyone, because in a way, it may be Monty Python’s finest achievement. (Not to mention, “Bright Side” is pretty great.)

P.S. My next movie review concerns another message movie that needed to learn a lesson or two from Life of Brian, so stay tuned . . . .

Harvey Review

April 23, 2015 by JD Hansel

It’s been weeks since I watched Harvey. I thought it was fitting to watch it on Easter, but then I never got around to reviewing it until now. So I’ll just review it now, and hopefully I’ll remember most of it.

Harvey, the third film in my unexplained series of reviews of movies that start with “Ha,” is a pleasant film. The plot concerns a man who repels most people he meets because he has a large invisible rabbit for a friend. It is based on a play, and it feels like watching a play the whole time. It is clever and funny, but since the main character (played by James Stewart) isn’t very real or relatable to me, the film didn’t totally hold my attention the whole time.

The plot was structured well in my opinion, and sort of reminded me of Shakespeare’s style. The ending was a little weak, but it was still nice. There were a few shots in the movie that looked pretty good, and some shots that were somewhat of impressive from a technical standpoint, but it’s a rather ordinary-looking film on the whole. Some of the lines are good, but the humor is by no means brilliant since it’s nearly all relying on the same joke: no one knows how to handle this crazy guy’s invisible friend Harvey. Still, it’s certainly a decent comedy film that will get a few laughs from its viewers.

So, in the end, it’s probably worth seeing. It’s not necessarily a must-see, but it’s a cute movie that is nice to watch every once in a while.

Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure Review

February 1, 2015 by JD Hansel

Boy, was I ever excited to see this movie. It’s a cartoony ‘80s comedy directed by Tim Burton! And did you see its trailer? It’s bound to be great!

It stunk. The movie dragged on forever with characters I did not care about and a plot that seemed pointless in the worst possible way. I know that it’s not right to judge a screenplay based on the movie having not read the screenplay itself, but this movie seems terribly written. Each scene seems to be without purpose, even to the point that many scenes in the film could be rearranged and it would make no difference. The plot doesn’t built, the twists are dull or insignificant, the beginning is a waste of time, and the climax, while containing some strong elements, has a scene with Pee Wee rescuing animals from a burning pet store that has nothing to do with anything else in the entire film. Why in the world should the climax be unrelated? Who thought this was a good story?

That being said… this movie is so beautiful. The darkness, the colors, the lights, and all the theatrical visuals make it a distinctly ’80s Burton work of art. So, so, so many shots in this film are breathtaking, and they inspire me to try to reach their level of majesty should I ever become a filmmaker. I almost wish that this film did not have Burton as a director. Had he not done this piece of junk and instead worked on a project with a good story during this time period, he might have made a movie I would have adored. However, if it led to the ’89 Batman, I guess this movie was meant to be.

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.