An Underrated Disney Comedy

            I have not been posting nearly enough this year and I want to steer back from that.  To that end I have found a 30-day blog challenge and fluffed it out to 31 entries (since December has 31 days).  I have done a 30-day challenge before for movies, though that one was poorly executed (I started it in the middle of a month, at one point I posted 2 entries on one day, it is a mess).  I did another one just this year in August on Video Games, that one was better, go read it after this one, all of it.  Or don’t, no pressure.

            Today is day 18 and the topic is “Funniest Moment”.

As you can probably tell from the title of this blog, I’m going to go ahead and cheat again, the fact of the matter is that I think there are lots of funny moments in Disney films.  They make tons and tons of comedy series and comedy has always been a part of their formulas for what they are releasing to the big sceen.  It is why there are so many stupid fucking sidekicks—e.g. “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”.

So rather than just pick out any one part or moment—something that was easier with the sadness—I chose instead to focus on showcasing a funny movie that I think is terribly underrated—but not the most underrated, that blog entry is still down the line later this month.  This is the most underrated pure comedy.

It is a funny movie.

It is a silly movie.

It is “A Goofy Movie”.

 

It is both strange and not strange to me that this scene in the movie is emphasized in the poster.
I kind of love this movie.

The Plot

Goofy’s son, Max managed to pull off an epic stunt/prank on the last day of school before summer to impress the girl he has had a crush on, unfortunately that stunt pissed off his hyperbolic principle enough to tell Goofy that Max is going to end up on death row one day (seriously).  Goofy decides to take Max on the same road trip he and his dad went on years prior to help Max get back on the right path, Max would rather go on a date with his crush.

Does anyone know what animal she is supposed to be an anthropomorphized version of?

Ultimately Max lies to the girl he likes, telling her that the trip he is going on is to a concert and that he will be on stage with the performer.  Will Max decide to go with his dad on a corny trip thru painfully uncomfortable attempts to have fun?  Or will Max manage to turn the trip to the concert and find some way to get on stage?  Spoilers: He does.

Movie Analysis

This film successfully matches two of my favorite subgenre’s of comedy, the “road trip” and the “odd couple”.  As the young and trying hard to be cool son, Max goes from gag location to gag location with his older and trying hard to connect father, Goofy allowing the two to bounce off one another in a variety of locations.

The movie is also a great musical.  There are several scenes in which the musical performances are happening in the context of the story and it not only sounds good but because of the risk and nervous tension of the characters performing it, the staging becomes a lot more fun.  It is and feels like an adventure.

Character Analysis

Both Goofy and Max have goals and motivation that make sense, Max might be on a trip with his dad but he still wants to do something to impress the girl he has an infatuation with, and is ultimately too scrupulous to let the lie he told her—a lie that inexplicably worked out—to stand.  Goofy, in contrast is worried that his son is going to be a crook because of bad information he got from Max’s principle, and much like Clark Griswold in “Vacation” Goofy wants to take his family on a trip to connect and show them who he is and that they matter to him.

Let me just reemphasize the Goofy = Clark Griswold comparison.  Goofy is a well-meaning idiot who is just smart enough to know he is below the curve and attempts to make up for his deficits with can do attitude, it is the entire basis of his character going back to the instructional videos Disney would release of Goofy trying to hook up speakers or play golf—and those videos hold up exceptionally well.

The only real difference between Goofy and Chevy Chases’ most well-known role is that Chevy is more of a scumbag.  Goofy is therefore much more likable, and along with guys like Ernest P World and Pee Wee Herman, make up a pantheon of loveable dumbasses from my youth.

Though I think they might be a few other references in this movie too.

The Beg for Attention

            Share your own thoughts on this in the comments.  I know I am not the only person out there who is nostalgic for Disney products, and I am sure many people disagree with my selection for today’s entry. 

I picked Disney stuff just because I knew there was so much of it to talk about and it lends itself to discussion in the comments.  So please, tell me how my opinion about cartoon movies is biased and how your opinion on cartoon movies is objectively right.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

My Thoughts on the "Ghostbusters" Franchise

            Let me talk a bit about one of my favorite things ever: Ghostbusters.

            The original film holds a special place in my heart as the movie I have seen the most in my life.  My estimates are inexact (as most of the times I saw it were prior to my turning 5) but I think a guess of 100+ times would not be out of the question.  I could quote whole tracts of the movie’s dialogue before I even knew what they meant.  My father brings up wistfully the numerous times I would talk to strangers at the grocery store introducing myself as, “Hello, my name is Ray Stanz, I’m a Ghostbuster” which I pronounced “Gose-Busser”.

More than that, I am a big fan of the cartoons.  I own the gigantic premium box set of “The Real Ghostbusters” and I feel the biggest misstep of the marketing of “Ghostbusters (2016)” is that they have not released “Extreme Ghostbusters” on DVD (it is the most underrated cartoon of the 1990’s).  I watched “RGB” to the point of destroying the VHS tapes of it my grandparents had at their house.

I owned and played with dozens of the toys, to the point where they fell apart, with bits snapping off, pieces going missing, and paint flaking off.  More than “Masters of the Universe”, more than “Transformers”, more than “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” this was the toy line that dominated my childhood (till Lego showed up and took over completely).

I even liked the sister(?)… knock-off(?)… rival?  We’ll go with rival.  I even liked the rival show “Filmation’s Ghostbusters”.  Which had two guys and a gorilla fighting ghosts and monsters sent back in time from the undead hellscape of the future.  It was mostly garbage, but still entertaining, if for no other reason than the music had a lot of get up and go.

The Gorilla Invented all of their equipment.
This used to be a live action series.

If I had the resources I do now (the internet) I would have collected and read the comics which for some reason only ever saw success in the UK.  I have a collection of the first 25 (thank you IDW) and will maybe get others in the future (honestly, the stories are freaking bananas and include an Ecto-4 which is a god damn rocket ship, and the first adventure includes the ghost of an intelligent alien slug monster).

I thought the sequel was fine, bit too much of a rehash of the first movie (kind of a lazy script when you get down to it) but harmless.

The video game was also fine and served as a good unofficial “Ghostbusters 3”, the game play was fun, and the writing (while hampered because there are clearly roles meant for Louis Tully and Dana Barret) is ultimately comparable to “Ghostbusters 2”.

I plan to see the new one this weekend.

That all being said I feel that I disagree with something that a lot of people list as the reason they like the original movie.  A lot of people seem to think that “Ghostbusters” only works because of Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Bill Murray.  That their singular chemistry allowed it all to come together.

I disagree.

The idea of “Funny guys fighting monsters/ghosts” has been around a while.  It is a simple premise, and while the execution of that premise varies WILDLY in both how it is done, and how well it is done.  The idea of “comedians fighting ghosts/monsters/aliens” is too broad a concept to be fenced in to just those three actors plus the extended cast (this is not to cast shade at Ernie Hudson, who I feel is underrated both in the franchise and as an actor in general, but he is a supporting character in the story).  Dan Aykroyd did not invent the idea.

Though, back in Mickey's day of fighting "Lonesome Ghosts" they didn't have proton packs.
They had to make due with a shotgun and a deerstalker cap.

The biggest issue I have with Ghostbusters (and I say this keeping in mind all of the positive things I have said above) is that they did not grow the concept.  The 1980’s was filled to the brim with talented comedic actors and special effects that got better every year.  The first “Ghostbusters” was set in New York and used several well-known comedians (and considering Eddie Murphy and John Candy were both originally in it, they didn’t even get their original picks), WHY THEN WAS THE SECOND ONE DOING THE SAME THING?

"Ghostbusters: Mardi Gras", "Ghostbusters: Liberty Bell", "Ghostbusters: Bambino's Curse". Just take a city, and throw comedians at it.  Lily Tomlin, Phil Hartman, Jane Curtin, George Carlin, Chris Rock, and anybody else.  Seriously now, do you think that Bill Murray invented being snide?  There are 100 cities in America that could all have their own ghost stories.  Voodoo zombie hordes, the Jersey Devil, HALF THE STUFF THEY DO ON “SUPERNATURAL” could all have been done with John Lithgow and Jeff Goldblum wearing proton packs.

A Trillion nerds on the internet and this is the only image of an alternate 80's cast.
Really wish I had Adobe Suite on this computer I would have put more into this effort.

“The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon had 140 episodes.  And while they all had different problems (they seemed to face a Gozer level world ending threat every episode) clearly there are stories that exist with people fighting ghosts.

            The reason I saw fit to write this is because I have seen a lot of people online arguing things like, “It is a big part of my childhood, they shouldn’t remake it”.  And I feel that is just stupid.  While I would prefer a movie in which the Ghostbusters already existed, and did the stuff from the movies and video game and then just had Ray and Winston showing up to hand the keys of the New York offices off to new people… That would have been better.  But, that is over with.  You can’t fence off the best iteration of a good idea.  The execution was too good not to run with in various permutations.

Just like Batman has been rebooted 10,000 times, and James Bond has looked like a half dozen people, Ghostbusters is starting fresh and hopefully is good enough to do what I wanted the series to do all along: GO PLACES.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

"The Simpsons" Missed Opportunities

Apparently “The Simpsons”, one of the most iconic bits of American culture ever produced will finally end (maybe) after its 30^th season.  This will make it one of the longest running shows ever in the same league as “Doctor Who” and “Guiding Light”.  I feel that its end is a good thing.  While the show is iconic it did not evolve nearly as much as it should have, and I feel that one of the best episodes of the series in one that explored how the show could have allowed the characters to grow up, “Lisa’ Wedding”.

Unlike other series this one still had more stories to tell after a wedding episode.

I generally think that the show had a lot of creative people on staff and created such an expansive cast of characters that there is a host of missed opportunities they could have explored and didn’t.  They even made a whole show joking about how they did not take advantage of that stable of characters, that was “The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase”, and a make-shift could-have-been-a-pilot, “22 Short Films About Springfield” two more episodes I consider among the series’ best work.

The reason I wrote this blog is I wanted to point to what I consider the biggest missed opportunity for a spin off from “The Simpsons”: Hank Scorpio and the Globex Corporation, from “You Only Move Twice”.

My favorite single appearance character in the series, and maybe my favorite character overall.
Voiced by the great actor, Albert Brooks.

It is my favorite episode of "The Simpsons", and the fact that Hank never returned to the series is a crying shame.  A series starring this character, a comedy spy series (a concept that has existed for decades) but told from the position of a villain.

Each season could be another giant scheme in a new base of operations and the logistics and mishaps that comes with running them. Volcano Island, Ice Castle, Undersea lab, Oil Rig, ancient city like El Dorado, and a Moon Base. You could have parodies of the Avengers (the British ones), Get Smart, the Manchurian Candidate, and the Prisoner (something “The Simpsons” did with the episode, “The Computer Wore Menace Shoes”)

If you do not know what this is, relax.  Nobody who watched the show was entirely sure what it was about either.

Hell, you could have parodies of every James Bond, sure we see the classic Sean Connery version get murdered, but what about Roger Moore?  You could also have Scorpio take down rival bad guys, like Rattle Snake (instead of Cobra), Phantom (instead of SPECTRE), Micro (instead of Quantum), and Chimera (instead of Hydra).

Have him golf with 3rd world dictators who are seen as absentminded puppets of the CIA and take stories from their real life eccentricities to develop them. The show could have actually raised people's general awareness of real life evil dictators.  I know who Omar Al-Bashir is, but having him played for comedy would let the various Cletus citizens of our country know too.

Now I feel sad and let down with the world.  Not merely because this show never got to exist, but of how many could have and didn’t, of how “The Simpsons” could have been the starting point of lots of shows like “All in the Family” had been decades prior.  Sure it still had a major impact, but it could have had more, it could have evolved and grown, and the fact that it didn’t is sad, it was kept frozen in time and now 30 years after it debuted it will end and that will be it.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Movies of 2014, Uncategorized

      Welcome to the miscellaneous category of movies that I watched and do not fit into any genre in particular.  There are several movies that I wanted to see, and now that some are on Netflix could have watched with ease, but for whatever reason I just didn’t bother to.  Films that while they look interesting, are popular after a fashion, or are 100x’s more relevant than they should have been, I just feel no drive to watch.  Maybe I am missing out on something that would surprise me (one of my top movies this year I watched on a complete lark when it was free and it blew me away), but I may never know.

      “Frank” is on Netflix, stars one of my favorite actors, and has a quirky premise that is probably very amusing; haven’t seen it.  “The Interview” is one of the most talked about movies because of its relation to a hacking scandal, saber rattling by a third world dictator, and that its digital release was a very interesting impromptu experiment; I do not really want to watch it.  “A Million Ways to Die in the West” has been blasted as one of the worst movies of the year, I am sure I would have had a much more middling reaction, from what I have heard of the thesis of the movie about traditional masculinity vs intellectualism it sounds like a movie that failed in spite of itself.

      “The Monuments Men” looked to be a good and original take on World War II, with commentary on art, and an all-star cast; I actually don’t know why I didn’t see it.  Conversely “Fury” is a very traditional looking take on WWII and I didn’t see that either.  “The Fault in Our Stars” is based on a book by John Green, of who I am a fan for his work via Crash Course and Mental_Floss, I would have liked this to be some kind of gateway into his work, but I just didn’t get around to seeing it.  “Nightcrawler” is a movie I still plan to see and will probably do some kind of review in March once I get around to it, though I would have put it into the CRIME category based on what I have seen in the promotional materials.

      I wish I were a professional critic so that I could have been paid to see for free lots of movies and to write about them at time of viewing, but instead I do this run down more as a writing exercise to increase my own proficiency in recognizing what I like and dislike about things so that I can relate them to others.

Muppets Most Wanted

            This was disappointing.  After the focus that the first movie had with a main character, a clear goal, and a road trip that was a natural outcropping of the plot… This movie was sort of a mess.  While it certainly has its funny elements and many characters get chances to shine with silly moments and sketches… It doesn’t work as a collective whole.  The best part of the movie is when the cast is trimmed down to Walter (the main character from the first movie) and some others going on a mission to save Kermit.  If that had been the whole plot with a ‘b’ plot of Gonzo and Ratso trying to catch Kermit’s impostor, or running the stage show in Kermit’s absence (in that instance there would be no villain) then I think this would have worked really well.  But it is cluttered and that causes an emotional distance from what is happening, the jokes start to fall flat and then… It’s over.

            Maybe I just lack the nostalgia for this property that is needed to love it, because I would be happy to see much of the old cast fade to the background to make room for a new generation of characters.  I have seen enough of the originals and would like to see them pass the baton to some new muppets.  “Muppet Babies” was my gateway drug to this franchise and it had a much smaller cast with a much tighter environment to work humor in.  In the context of a variety show having lots of characters makes sense, but a movie needs to keep things smaller and on target.

Overall: 5/10 

Strangely this poster which just is a group shot of 1/5th of the cast is not that bad.

They Came Together

            This was also disappointing.  I like everyone in this movie, I do not think there is a single actor not pulling their weight, everyone brings something to the table, nobody misses a beat, nobody’s time is wasted and there are a lot of gags that I am still referencing with my roommate months later.  “You can say that again.”

            So why do I find this movie so ‘meh’?  “Tell me about it.”  What was missing?  Why am I just looking back on the parts I liked?  What am I blacking out?  I can’t tell you.  Maybe this thing is actually some kind of masterpiece but I am just having a fit of depression and can’t appreciate the genius.  I doubt it, but how else do I explain that I just did not feel it?

            I wanted to like this movie, but I can’t recommend it.  Just watch the best parts on youtube maybe?

Overall: 5/10

 

Get it?

22 Jump Street

            (Maybe this should be in the CRIME section).  I thought the first one was fine.  I have issues with comedies based around police because of how little they have to do with police work ("Hot Fuzz" and "Super Troopers" being notable exceptions), hence why I did not bother to see "Let's be Cops" which looked painfully unfunny.

            This one is also fine.  There are lots of good parts and little gags, I laughed loud and hard several times.  The plot and the mystery of it work well and the chemistry between Tatum and Hill is on target and the core the movie rightfully uses as its bedrock.  It has the funniest credit sequence in the history of cinema.  The issue with comedies is judging whether they made you laugh and this one did, but it didn’t make me feel deep and lasting feelings.  It was just a fine little movie to pass the time.  Go ahead and watch it, I am sure many people will get deeper and more lasting enjoyment from this movie than I managed.

Overall: 6/10

 

The Spring Break portion is a very small part of the movie (roughly the last 5th) but is in a lot of the advertising.

The Lego Movie

            I really liked this movie (I went to see it to kill time, I had accidently locked myself out of my apartment, not much of a story so I will not dwell on it).  The way it subverts the very nature of the “chosen one” hero’s tale narrative structure that is the go to hack script of the modern era elevates it to being something special, and the twist that shows how imagination and creativity with structure and purpose yields fun and enjoyment on a deeper level than merely collecting ever could… That is a message that more people in Hollywood could stand to learn.

            Maybe the best interpretation of Batman ever on film, though the other superheroes get the short shaft in their cameos, I would have liked the joke version of Superman or Abraham Lincoln to have more time, but I guess that Batman is more in need of being made fun than nearly any other character in media.  It is most definitely worth a recommendation, go watch it and enjoy it.

            I do find it strange how many people keep referencing “Everything is Awesome” as some kind of message the movie is putting forth… IT IS NOT.  That song is used as a tool for brainwashing.  It is a tool of evil.  You can enjoy the song, but only ironically, you should recognize it for what it is a parody of hollow entertainment that makes you complacent in your day to day life.

Overall: 8/10

 

Strange thing wrong with this poster: Not enough Lego bricks.

Wish I Was Here

            This movie snuck up on me because I never saw (and still have not seen) Zach Braff's earlier film of "Garden State".

“Wish I was Here” is really touching.  It manages to touch on a lot of modern life (albeit a very millennial, upper middle class, white people problems sort of modern life) with issues of educating kids, religion, the death of a parent, and the overall shit nature of working in an office.

They could have cut a few lingering shots of the desert, or the long driving scenes that are more about showcasing the movie’s music than advancing the plot… but they go out of their way to have gorgeous shots to keep you visually engaged.

The movie has a lot of humor to offset the very heavy conclusion which involves the death of the main character’s father who left a lot of unpacked emotional baggage behind.  It is a good sort of sad.

Overall: 8/10

 

Awful poster.  Should have been one of the long shots of the beautiful landscapes.  Interesting use of the blue/orange color contrast that dominates modern media advertising.

Birdman

            While this movie is not in my top 5 I understand its appeal and would be happy with it winning an Oscar for best picture (it is one of the 3 movies in that category I have seen... and I am sure that means I have seen more of those movies that a good number of the academy... but whatever).

            Dealing with the creeping realization of one’s own obsolescence and the desperate struggle to establish a professional and creative legacy before finally (literally) bowing out, that is a good topic.  And the casting is great, with the three main characters all being chosen for meta-textual reasons related to their past careers in the superhero genre and their real life reputations in the industry.  Michael Keaton is funny as hell, especially when working with Edward Norton… Really everybody is great, it is almost unfair to point to anyone specifically because I am sure even the minor characters would have consistently delivered on all the material they could be given.

            I would like to take a second to write about GIMMICKS (I will do this again in my top 5, and again when I talk about the worst movie of the year).  I tend to come down on movies that have a Gimmick.  Some silly trick or set of production rules that makes things harder on the actors and crew.  An increase in difficulty that adds an element to the craft of film making that can elevate a movie that would otherwise be a ho-hum entry in history.  “Under the Skin” had nudity and improve acting (including Scarlet Johansen trying to pick up real men hidden camera style).  “Muppets Most Wanted” has the gimmick of celebrity cameos and most of the cast being puppets.  “The Lego Movie” is made to look like the entire film is constructed of Lego. “Birdman” has the appearance of having been filmed in one long continuous take.  The one long take illusion is used to emphasize the fact that the movie is about theater work, that there are no cuts when working on stage.  There is a hidden cut every time the movie goes to complete darkness and there are other hidden cuts whenever there is no one on the screen, but I imagine the typical take on any given scene was 10-20 times the length of a typical take for a modern movie, longer if you take into account the frantic cutting used in modern action movies.  So do I think this gimmick is something that elevates the movie?  Kind of…

For instance, the Kinect was definitely a gimmick that detracted from what it was trying to do.  (image)

            The movie would be fine without the gimmick, it is a solid story with good dialogue, good actors, a good theme, and lots of craft and hard work went into the movie, even with a traditional editing mindset the movie would still be really good, and that is the key in my opinion to making a gimmick work: that the gimmick doesn’t really matter.  It is a flourish that makes a good production better with the added context.  It is a detail that makes those who learn of it say, “Wow, that actually sounds really difficult, I am surprised the movie was so good under those circumstances”.  “Birdman” does that.  Its flourish adds to the production.

Overall: 8/10

I get what they were going for with this.  Except for it being animated/cell shaded.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 26

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie that makes me Laugh".  Which I think is sort of a useless prompter.  I watch comedy like drivers watch the road.  I watched a comedy last night, I am currently watching an online comedian make fun of a movie from the 80's, I read comedic novels ("Mogworld") and Blogs ("Remedial Batmanology") and the first thing I did in undergrad upon moving into a dorm that had cable, my first encounter with cable, was to watch "Comedy Central Presents" (Brian Regan, the Lewis Black).  So what is a movie that makes me laugh?  "Office Space".

Lotta white on this poster, but it gets the vibe right.  Nothing going on anywhere, but you are smothered by work.

             There are few things that bother me more than being a person who lives an unremarkable or joyless life, I can stand being joyless if I am successful (sort of like "Citizen Kane") and I can tolerate being poor so long as I am happy (like Richard Mayhew in "Neverwhere"), but "Office Space" illustrates exactly the sort of personal breakdown and rebellion I would experience living a life of cubicled hell that Ron Livingston goes through each day.  I generally dislike most people and being caged in an area having to listen to shit heads give me instruction over and over again is enough to make me beat my own head into a neck stump.

Also, the nameless boss from "No Country for Old Men" is in it.  And pretty much steals the movie.

             The movie follows everyman played by Ron Livingston (who gives a shit what his character's name is, he's playing himself, the poor man's John Cusack, who is in turn the poor man's Robert Downey Junior).  This everyman finally has a break through during therapy that allows him to simply stop caring about his job and start living his life the way he wants, and he gets rewarded for it, he then decides to take it one further and just rob his company a penny at a time and that is when he bites off more than he can chew.  Really it has a lot of the same themes as "Fight Club", but I'm not going to go on and on about that again.  And "Office Space" has Jennifer Aniston playing a girl next door waitress who in short order illustrates all the shit that I have come to associate with the service industry.

            The movie is hilarious, go watch it.

            If you liked my take on this movie, please click the Google "+1" button in the comments section, post the link on your facebook, or send people over from anywhere else you might social network.