It's a strange experience to watch a film like this, out of it's time. Particularly with comedies, when they blow up they blow UP and are inescapable, and then no one wants to ever talk about them again (much less deal with references to it). It becomes very hard to seperate the art from everything swirling around it. In the 10 year span surrounding "Napoleon Dynamite," it happened with several movies ("There's Something About Mary," "Austin Powers," and "Borat," just to name a few), and I largely have no desire to watch any of those ones at all, no matter how much or how hard I laughed when I saw them originally. I saw this in the guide on TV, and thought "what the heck, eat your ham, Tina!"
Have you really not seen this movie? I guess it's possible, so to recap... Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder) is a spectacularly awkward teenager in a world where everyone is spectacularly, and differently awkward. This world is called Idaho. He lives with his grandmother and his cage-fighter brother, Kip (Aaron Ruell). Seriously, does the plot even matter? Everyone is a complete weirdo. Napoleon's only friend, figuratively-narcoleptic Pedro (Efren Ramirez) runs for class president, which ends with a Jamiroquai jam. People find where they belong. That's as much of a plot as really matters.
I guess the biggest question here is whether this movie is still funny or not. You can't really even say whether it justified all of the attention it got, that sort of aspect is really out of everyone's hands at some point. The good news is that, at least for me, I still enjoyed it. It helps a lot that literally none of the actors play their characters ironically, winking at the camera (except for LaFawnduh, who literally winks at the camera, but not in that way). Self-consciously weird rarely ages well. It just comes off as a entire town of people who are just doing their best, although they also know that that's not quite enough, and in the case of Napoleon, creates constant frustration and outbursts. I feel like the movie would have been destroyed by incorporating even one character who had their act together. And having seen other Jared Hess movies, that tone of outright weirdness is a constant, and is absolutely not an accident.
In this instance, time has benefitted "Napoleon Dynamite." Being able to get away from the endless merchandising, the constant quoting, and general omnipresence of this film allows it to just be the weird-ass, shaggy movie that it is at it's heart. It's worth noting that it's part of a minor trend in movies in that same 10 year span, where the tone is set for the bulk of the movie, and then there's a surprisingly deft performance that is built up to (think Jack Black in "High Fidelity" or Samuel L. Jackson's gig in "Black Snake Moan"), and that's a stucture that works, if you can pull it off. Thanks to D-Qwon's Dance Grooves, Napoleon did just that. I could see throwing this on again down the road, although it might not be my first choice, but that's pretty good for something that was as everywhere as this was at one point.
I've probably DVR'd this movie three separate times (only to fail to watch it before I switched cable providers, so I have copies of this languishing on hard drives somewhere), but only just now finally got around to watching it. There are a lot of things that appeal straight off about this one; it's about a disgraced priest (instantly sold), the vaguely Saul Bass-ish pink poster is awesome, plus I couldn't swear that I'd ever seen Richard Burton or Ava Gardner in a movie before. And I also usually like stuff that's set in a locale that I haven't been to before (largely in Puerta Vallarta, here). So I've been curious about "The Night of the Iguana" for a while, and really got rewarded once I hit play.
Trouble brewing!
In order for a priest to be disgraced, something has to happen. We don't get to that right away, but we start off with the Reverend Dr. T Lawrence Shannon (Richard Burton) delivering a sermon that quickly devolves into a meltdown, and a pointed criticism of all the looky-loos who came to judge. The next thing you know, Rev. Shannon is leading tour guides in Mexico for church groups, and looking like he maybe hasn't showered in the intervening unspecified time since his meltdown. That doesn't stop the precocious Charlotte (Sue Lyon) from setting her sights on Shannon, and rather relentlessly. Shannon is caught between trying to shake off his teenaged stalker and the accusations of her chaparone, Miss Judith Fellowes (Grayson Hall), who promises that she will "take steps" if Shannon continues trying to pursue Charlotte. It's not apparent if there is any merit to those accusations, but Charlotte is definitely looking at Shannon like he's a snack. As the tour falls apart, Shannon eventually insists on driving the bus (wildly), skipping the hotel the tour was supposed to stop at, and heading to a more friendly (for Shannon) hotel, which is run by Maxine (Ava Gardner). And the fireworks commence.
One of the things that you might have to deal with is your tolerance for overacting. This film is based on a play by Tennessee Williams, and it very much feels like a play, with it's limited settings and emphasis on interaction between characters (and a compressed period of time). It also feels a lot like a low-budget 90s indie film, for the same reason. So while there are rather scenic views, you're not going to get much action or movement. For that reason, I didn't have a problem with Gardner and Burton's hamfest - it added to the charm of the film quite a bit for me. There are also a number of characters who are quite debauched, and Burton's alcoholic priest and Gardner's throaty loose-bodied performance captured my attention well. By contrast, there are also a number of characters that are pretty tamped down and repressed (like Grayson Hall's character and Hannah, played by Deborah Kerr), and some characters that are just spaced out most of the time. It left me wondering which way a scene would play out, which kind of personality would take over a scene.
Even more trouble brewing!
Other than finding "Iguana" a compelling story, one of the mild surprises of the film was it's forthrightness about sexual matters. I'm not going to go through a checklist, and it wasn't visually explicit, but there were a number of times I said "dang" to myself. This is a salty-ass movie, and it gets into people's business without much shame. Probably the most aggressive aspect of this involves Maxine (who has been recently widowed), who is pretty up front about the fact that she's been getting served for quite a while by a pair of locals who are always dancing shirtless with maracas (their fight scene is a riot, too). Girl's got needs! You may expect because a movie is in black and white that some things are not going to get addressed, but this is a movie that is pretty much centered around what has happened to and what will happen to Richard Burton's donger, but that's definitely not to say that everyone else doesn't have a past and also has current desires. It's very egalitarian in that respect.
I was very pleasantly surprised by "The Night of the Iguana." Like I said before, I was sold once I knew it was about a disgraced priest (hey, we all have our soft spots), but it totally took that idea and ran with it. I had no idea that John Huston directed it, I'm not even sure I knew who the actors were when I first DVR'd it. I often find the less you know about a movie going in, the better experience it ends up being. And this a very good experience, even if you have to deal with the baseless accusations of a nit-picky church group on a tour bus, multiple women individually trying to get your attention, possibly detoxing while tied up in a hammock, and the relentless heat of a summer in a Mexico resort town.
"Pink Cadillac" - 1989
Dir. by Buddy Van Horn - 2 hrs. 2 min.
TV Spot #1
by Clayton Hollifield
What if I told you there's a movie you've never heard of, that has Clint Eastwood, James Cromwell, and Jim Carrey in a comedy? This technically is true, and I would also be badly misleading you. I would be misleading you on several points. This film exists, it is classified as a comedy, and all three of those men are in it. It's called "Pink Cadillac." It exists as a testament to how badly star power can cloud even the best judgment, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that not only did someone think that this was a solid concept, but someone actually financed this movie into existence.
Tommy Nowak (Clint Eastwood) is a skip tracer, which I think is the same thing as a bounty hunter? Basically, he goes after people who have skipped bail, and does so with a fondness for costumes and subterfuge. Tommy is put on the job to track down Lou Ann McGuinn (Bernadette Peters), who has gone on the run with her infant, fleeing from her dumbass husband, Roy (Timothy Carhart). He's such a dumbass he's a low-level member of a white-supremacist group, has started dabbling in crystal meth, and also let Lou Ann take the fall for his group of merry morons' counterfeiting scheme. Lou Ann absconds with his pink cadillac, which she is unaware contains about a quarter million dollars.
It would probably be a good idea to knock out the positives of this movie first. Bernadette Peters looks awfully nice in her red dress. At no time does the film make any apologies for Roy or the band of idiots he runs with. And there are some nice very short appearances by actors who would eventually be a lot better than having to take tiny roles in movies like "Pink Cadillac." One of the scenes has James Cromwell playing the guy in charge of a small motel, and has one of my favorite jokes in a movie that I've ever seen. The other has Jim Carrey (and this was even pre-"In Living Color"), playing a lame comedian in a Reno casino. Here, I'll save you two hours:
Tiny Arm Elvis!
So why is this a Clint Eastwood movies that no one ever remembers? I think it all boils down to it being a bad fit. There's a long history of these kinds of comedies, where you take a fundamentally serious/dangerous job, jam a comedian into it that can coast on charm and wackiness, and then the movie takes a serious turn in the third act and has to live up to the demands of the job. Just look at "Pineapple Express," for a decent version of a similar structure. Seth Rogen gets to dress up, run his mouth a bunch, and then things get violent and shit gets real. I'm not sure there's anyone who was clamoring for Clint Eastwood to star in a comedy of any kind. And even if there was, if you were like me, you might expect that he would be the straight man. Here, Eastwood is the one putting on costumes, playing "characters," and trying to charm people into things that are against their own self-interest. And here is an example of how that plays out:
There is never a point where Eastwood doesn't look wildly uncomfortable playing a character playing these characters. Maybe he's the funniest son of a bitch you ever met in person, but I'd lay down money that he's not this specific kind of funny. So there's no good reason for Clint to be the star of this film. He's made some all-time great movies, but not one of them was a comedy. This leads back to my original thesis: star power blinds people. If Eastwood was willing to make this movie, this movie was going to get made. Maybe it was a favor to somebody; the director, Buddy Van Horn, long was Eastwood's stunt man. I'm not saying that's why this movie exists, I'm honestly curious if there's ever been anyone who had the cojones to ask Clint to his face about this one. This is something that I intend to do some sleuthing into, not that that's going to help you, or me with the writing of this.
I'd be totally remiss in not admitting that while this is not any kind of a good movie, there is true perverse pleasure watching Clint Eastwood struggle with pulling off characters like Sleazy Car Salesman, Cut-Up Redneck, and Limousine Driver. Everyone else who has smaller roles, including Bernadette Peters, does their best with the material. I've probably seen this movie three or four times in my life, and I have no idea why I keep coming back for more. Maybe it's that joke James Cromwell tells. That really is one of my favorite bits in film I've ever seen.
"Ghost Rider" - 2007
Dir. by Mark Steven Johnson - 1 hr. 50 min.
Official Trailer (Espanol)
by Clayton Hollifield
2007 was a simpler time. Superhero movies hadn't yet steamrolled everything in sight. Also, you could still shop at a Toys 'R Us. And, you know, do other stuff too, like shaking people's hands or coughing in public. Nicolas Cage was known for making batty movies with even battier acting choices yet, but that was still pre-meme supremacy era. The odds that any given superhero movie was going to be worthwhile was an uneven bet. Hollywood didn't know what to do with this material, outside of individuals who got it right. But studios seemed more willing to take a shot at these kinds of movies.
Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) is a second-generation circus motorcycle stunt rider, part of his father's act. Burton Blaze (Brett Cullen) is his father, a stern man with a dangling cigarette and rockin' sideburns. After another night of getting his ass chewed out (not a euphemism - people didn't eat ass in 2007, at least not as a point of public pride), Johnny discovers some concerning news about his father. In classic fashion, a very fancy man, Mephistopheles (Peter Fonda) shows up and offers young Mr. Blaze a deal; his father's health for Johnny's soul. Johnny takes Meph up on the offer, and it turns out to be not exactly what he expected it to be. So Johnny bails super-hard, leaving his life (and girlfriend) behind.
Life ain't nothing but bikes and jelly beans
There's a lot to say about this movie, which seems weird, because there's not a lot to this movie. So let's go with the good first. The cast for Ghost Rider is pretty good. Nic Cage is bonkers, and I had no confidence anyone would get this right as a movie, so it at least has his stash of insane line readings to fall back on. But past that there's Donal Logue as Johnny Blaze's buddy, Eva Mendes as the female-shaped object, Sam Elliott doing Undertaker-style promos in a graveyard, Rebel Wilson making the most of her one minute on screen, and Peter Fonda cashing in some motorcycle-movie credit here. Everything interesting in this film comes from actors hamming things up. One problem for me is that the villain, Blackheart (Wes Bentley) was eye-rollingly bad throughout the film, in pretty much every way. If you sat down and thought about what's the worst version of the villain from Hell trope, please believe that Wes Bentley topped that and took home a trophy for how bad his character was. I don't know if it was him, the writing, or an unholy combination of the two, but when the villain just comes off like a try-hard dork, then the hero vs. villain aspect that's supposed to drive the film is going to fail.
The biggest problems with this film is that you can see the Hollywood fingerprints all over it. Part of that is that they had not yet figured out how to consistently nail superhero stories. In the Avengers arc, yes there were romantic elements present, but that's not the thrust of any of the stories. They're oddly asexual in that manner (aside maybe from the first Thor and Natalie Portman's delightful agogness); they're more about rising to the occasion, heroism, duty, honor, and all that stuff. In Ghost Rider, one of the main plot points is Johnny Blaze continually bailing on Roxanne (Eva Mendes), and that part of the story is given more attention than the whole save-the-world-from-Mephistopheles thing. Superhero stories are about looking good enough to get laid, but not about the actual laying. This one falls back on having the basic romance being the thrust, instead of just having Ghost Rider looking badass and scaring the crap out of hoods. There is also the fact that there's not another memorable female character present, which isn't make or break, but is part of the problem here. Roxanne exists not out of her own agency, but basically as something for Blaze to win over.
But the biggest issue is a problem that we film-viewers are going to have to increasingly deal with: old digital effects look cheesy. I'm not going to hammer on that point, but watching a 13 year old movie that relies on effects is going to have to compete with all the advances that digital effects have made in that time span. I will give some credit; I've been re-reading the 90's Ghost Rider comics lately, and this movie does a good job of replicating the look and feel of those comics. Unfortunately, the people who would be stoked about that would also be annoyed that the main character of the movie is Johnny Blaze, since it was Danny Ketch who was the star of that particular comic series. Comic fans are funny like that.
Chug! Chug! Chug!
So look, Ghost Rider was a bad movie even when it came out. I think the main reason this one exists is because Cage was a Ghost Rider fan, and he got to get paid to cosplay, and why would you turn that down? But it's not like there are any great Ghost Rider comics to have drawn upon for inspiration, it's just a character that looks awesome, but no one has really managed to do much with that. Time hasn't done this movie any favors, but the cast is absolutely to my taste. So it wasn't painful to rewatch. It's also pretty unlikely I'll be rewatching it again soon; literally everyone I liked in this movie has other movies that are way better.
"Money Monster" - 2016
Dir. by Jodie Foster - 1 hr. 38 min.
Official International Trailer
by Clayton Hollifield
George Clooney clearly has some things to say about the media, in general. This movie is the spiritual back-end of a double-feature that starts with "Good Night, and Good Luck." One is sort of a throw-back to the better days of news coverage (at least from the viewpoint of the film), this one is updating of "Network" (which I haven't seen), which uses Jon Stewart's public evisceration of Jim Kramer as the inspiration for a different kind of media-focused movie.
Lee Gates (George Clooney) hosts a financial "news" show, complete with costumes, hot air, dancers, and dance routines. It's clear that Gates views this as entertainment first and foremost, but one of his stock tips ends disastrously for pretty much everyone when a company called IBIS experiences a computer glitch that sees $800m disappear overnight. Kyle Budwell (Jack O'Connell), a blue-collar worker on the edge of financial ruin, loses his life savings, and decides to take Gates hostage on-air. Complicating matters, the scheduled guest of Gates' show, the CEO of IBIS, Walt Camby (Dominic West), has gone off the grid, leaving no answers behind.
There is always a sort of thrill to seeing a hostage situation, and the twist here is that the situation is played out on live TV. I can't swear that would even be plausible; I suspect that there's some kind of FCC rule that would say tough shit to someone like Lee Gates - and that no network would be allowed to air something like a hostage situation that might lead to a very large explosion. Airing something like the situation proposed here would probably just encourage more people to do the same thing, if they knew that they'd get their TV time in exchange for criminal behavior. So that's the first thing you're going to have to accept in order to enjoy "Money Monster."
One of the other things that you're going to have to accept is an idealistic view of the world. "Money Monster" makes the point that creating vast wealth is a filthy, ruthless business, based on victimizing people. Which is entirely true. It also makes the point that treating financial news like it belongs on Sportscenter or something is irresponsible, which is probably also true. I've always felt like, by the time something hits TV, especially something like a stock tip, it's old news. But Kyle takes Gates at his word, and throws his life savings behind something aired on an entertainment show, from the mouth of a dancing baboon. Obviously, this is foolhardy, and Kyle isn't portrayed as being particularly bright, and neither is taking people hostage.
Once you get past these things, "Money Monster" is a good thriller. It's not great, but it's somewhat timely, and it functions as a story. I enjoyed it while I watched it, which is probably a testament to Clooney and his co-star, Julia Roberts, who plays his producer. The movie makes some valid points, although this is more of a thriller than a hard-hitting satire. The biggest laughs came from off-hand comments along the way, just frequently enough to keep the tension at a reasonable level. The point is, this is a film you're supposed to enjoy and forget, even though there's meat on the bones of the topic used as the foundation.
You know how, when you get a second album by a band you really liked, and only this time there's a new singer or a new guitarist, how that usually means trouble? That. Or like when your favorite basketball team suddenly trades away their borderline all-star who made everyone around him better, you know you're going to be in for a long season? That, also. In the world of "Hot Tub Time Machine 2," the key missing element would be John Cusack, who was also the only decent actor among the cast. So when you remove the one guy who can act, and bring back everyone else...
What's left.
This time around, success is not enough for Lou (Rob Corddry), Nick (Craig Robinson), and Jacob (Clark Duke). Lou goes off the deep end (or just continues his trajectory, more accurately), and ends up getting shot in the dick (yes, really) at his own party. Since Lou has possession of the hot tub of extraordinary powers, all three hop in to try and head off Lou's impending assassination. As it turns out, they end up ten years in the future, because they go where they're needed to be, not where they want to be.
First off, the positives. There are some funny bits here; it's not that the cast isn't funny, it's that they can't act. So the dialogue is good, the timing is good, even some of the comedic premises and performances are good. In particularly, I was laughing at a game show called "Choozy Doozy," a scene at an urgent care clinic, and there are good lines all the way through. Adam Scott was funny in his role as John Cusack's straight-laced son. This is far from the worst movie I've ever seen. While I wasn't happy with it overall, there were parts I enjoyed, and it didn't drag too badly.
Three guesses which one the audience chooses...
But the first movie was unusual, partly because it felt a little more honest, which was partly due to building it around Cusack, who has the ability to make you think there's more going on than there is actually going on. Even though the first installment was a "R-rated comedy," which has become a genre of it's own, seeing an unusual face like Cusack's involved lent credibility to the whole affair, suggesting that film was going to be a bit more than swearing, nudity, and copious irresponsible behavior. Minus that, the sequel has to rely on the one-note asshole Lou and the wooden Nick as it's leads. This does not work nearly as well. Corddry at least seems committed to the role, Craig Robinson seems barely awake for much of the time. I'm not exactly mad at anyone involved with the film; get your cash when it's on the table.
The second big issue I have is that the premise of the movie is unrelatable. It's entirely believeable that people have regrets, and would gladly take a mulligan on some of their earlier behavior. This time around, the characters actually debate trying again because they think they can do better than being worth $2.6 billion (Lou), and then have to prevent the least likable character from getting murdered. Even Lou doesn't seem to care about preventing his own death; it's only the fact that he starts "flickering" when he goes off trail that keeps him sort of on-point. So if they don't care and I don't care, who cares?
"Webber Strut"
After the first film, my working theory was that the characters were all doomed to failure because none of them could get anything right the first time, and that would ultimately catch up to all of them. I guess I was right. But all in all, this feels like when they killed off Vin Diesel's character in "xXx" because he didn't want to do a sequel, and then we got a shitty sequel that starred Ice Cube in such terrible shape he wore the equivalent of a parka for the entire film. If Vin wanted to do another "xXx" film, I feel like it would happen in short order, but we'd all like to forget about that half-assed sequel. If John Cusack ever wants to get involved with the "Hot Tub" series again, I'd be on board instantly. Until then, no more awful half-measures, please.
"Spectre" - 2015
Dir. by Sam Mendes - 2 hrs. 28 min.
Official Trailer;
by Clayton Hollifield
Put simply, I've never seen a (non-George Lazenby) Bond film that was so bad that I gave up on the series. Even the ones that weren't great were still passable; I got a late start on the series with Pierce Brosnan, and "passable" is the single most apt word to describe his Bond films. As for the Daniel Craig films, they seem to alternate between awesome and pretty good. Since "Skyfall" was awesome, that means "Spectre" is...
"Spectre" finds Bond (Daniel Craig) wallowing in the aftermath of "Skyfall," having been handed what amounts to a secret mission. Bond infiltrates an assassin's guild meeting, is found out, and then ends up promising to protect a lovely young lady, Dr. Swann (Lea Seydoux), from that same assassin's guild. At the same time, Bond has been suspended over his actions in the last film, and the double-oh program is trying to fend off a hostile takeover from other British intelligence agencies.
The first thing that keeps taking me by surprise is that the "down" films of the cycle follow immediately in the footsteps of the previous, awesomer film. It might not kill the Bond folks to include a friendly reminder that you might want to throw "Skyfall" in ye old laserdisc player to brush up on where things stand before you wander into "Spectre." But at the same time, the opening sequence of "Spectre," set during a Dio de los Muertos celebration in Mexico City, is compelling, thrilling, and a lot of other adjectives that mean you're going to grip the shit out of your armrest for about ten minutes there. Are there other, quality action sequences in "Spectre?" Sure, but the opening sequence is easily the best of them.
Visuals, bro!
From one viewpoint, it might feel like the film blows it's load in that first sequence. In terms of straight up action, maybe. It ends up feeling like the film isn't supposed to be entirely about action, though. Things are more complicated than that, although it's difficult to make brooding about one's life choices as thrilling as blowing things up. And this film is a bit of a thinker. This might be the first Bond film (at least that I can remember, and I'm far from an archivist on this matter) where he has to deal with someone who not only understands very clearly who and what Bond is, but also has turned her back on that life by deliberate action. The relationship between Bond and Dr. Swann might be par for the course for Bond, but she also forces him to examine himself and what he does. Bond, at the core, is a man of action, not of pensive thought, but whether or not that self-examination will lead to hesitation at key moments is a big question here.
This is where fighting on a train will get you.
As far as villains go, well, I'll watch Christoph Waltz all day long. And Dave Bautista has a great turn as the mostly-mute Hinx. The two, although they don't really work with one another (like, they're not a duo or anything) present diametrically-opposed problems for Bond. Blofeld (Waltz) is all brains, sadism, and self-delusion; Hinx is enormous and likes to physically fight people. He's pretty good at it, too. The larger (evil) plot is somewhat interesting; it has to do with data collection and sharing. The great news is that "Spectre" seems to have a better, more even approach to technology than did "Skyfall." And also, the "good guys" don't come off like grumpy old farts about these things this time around. Instead, some of the bad guys get to embody why there's a bit of a backlash (the arrogance of youth, having a poor understanding of the larger situation) against having things dictated to you by twenty-somethings. In "Spectre," it's the difference between trying to find a place for technology in the world, and viewing technology as a sacred inevitability.
So I think the big point I'd make about "Spectre" is that this is by no means a bad film. Also, you should watch "Skyfall" sometime in the week preceding seeing "Spectre." But this is more of a movie about ideology with action elements than something that's constructed solely as an action film with compelling plot points. So, muich like "Quantum of Solace," "Spectre" comes off as a bit muted, a bit more cerebral, and these are things that people might not necessarily be asking for out of their Bond films. But if you're open to those things, this is a solid (but not top-notch) addition to the series.
Sam Smith - "Writing's on the Wall" - live on the Graham Norton Show
