Mystery Men - 1999

"Mystery Men" - 1999
Dir. by Kinka Usher - 2 hrs. 1 min.

Theatrical Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I remembered really liking "Mystery Men" when it came out.  Part of it was probably just the dearth of comic book adaptations, which was quickly rectified in the passing decade.  Part of it was my crush on Janeane Garofalo, part was the sheer improbability of a Hollywood film being made on a Bob Burden comic.  "Mystery Men" has a more than solid cast and is pretty funny, so what's the problem here?

First, recap.  Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), Shoveler (William H. Macy) and the Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) are a super-hero team, sort of.  They're not any good at it, and end up trying to save senior citizens from a gang of thieves, but are quickly eclipsed when Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear) shows up and routs the baddies.  Turns out Cap is so good at fighting crime that people, and therefore his sponsors, are losing interest.  To rekindle interest, Cap decides to get his old nemesis, Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush), sprung from Arkham Asyl...  I mean, the looney bin, so that they can renew their rivalry and Cap can continue to rake in the sweet sponsorship moolah.  Casanova has learned a few new tricks in his time away, and that leaves Furious & company as the last heroes standing between him and tragedy.

So lets start with the good.  All of the actors, and I mean all of them, do a great job.  Stiller and Garofalo (playing "The Bowler," she has a super-powered bowling ball with her deceased father's head in it, which she talks back to) bicker like you want them to, Macy plays things straight, Azaria's strange and puts on a fake British accent for much of the film.  If I recall, this was also one of the first movies that Paul Reubens (playing The Spleen, a lisping, bezitted dork armed with super-powered farts) made after his legal run-in at a theater of a different kind, and he does a great job here, too.  Pretty much all of the good stuff in "Mystery Men" (and there is plenty of good comedy and acting here) is due to the cast going above and beyond.

I have two essential problems with "Mystery Men" at this point, nearly fifteen years after its release.  The first concerns the direction; director Kinka Usher (this is his one and only feature film, he's returned to directing TV ads since) is obsessed with jamming people's faces right into the camera.  And when faces aren't approaching the camera, maybe it's a car driving right up to the camera.  I feel like I've just spent two hours looking up actor's noses and staring at people through a door's peephole.  It's unbelievably repetitive (I was aware of this quickly, and completely sick of it half an hour in); it's the sort of approach that might work in thirty-second commercials, but is unsustainable over the course of two hours.  Also, it forces an awareness of the camera that distracts from the pure storytelling aspect of "Mystery Men."

I didn't mind the story (even though it's basically a mash-up of Grant Morrison and Dave McKean's "Arkham Asylum" graphic novel and "The Warriors", which offers up little of creator Bob Burden's surrealist appeal), but the approach to making this film is hard to grasp.  I'm not a purist; I don't believe for a second that a film has to match up to it's source material at all.  They're two separate entities, and I'm more than willing to give the creators of each room to make their art work in the format that they're using.  But if you look at the source material in this case, which were throw-away characters in Burden's main comic book creation, "Flaming Carrot," I can't begin to figure out how anyone saw a film budgeted at $68 million.  "Mystery Men" is a movie based on a forgotten drunken bar joke (literally - Burden had to be reminded of a joke he'd made at a bar about a nonsensical superhero one night and then promptly forgot about), and Burden's work is surreal and crude (I don't mean that as a slight - his work's appeal lies in it's humor and approach, and not in his draftsmanship).  So how does that translate into a film that cops it's neon/greased plastic look directly from "Batman & Robin," one of the most critically reviled comic-book adaptations ever committed to film?

The entire approach is misguided and overblown; "Mystery Men" should have been an ragged indie comedy to have any chance to succeed.  Instead, we get chestnuts like the entire team walking seven-across in slow-motion through fog.  Another problem; while "Mystery Men" is set in the future, no one has a cell phone.  1999 would have been on the cusp of when people really started carrying them around, but it seems implausible to have a future world where people don't have any electronic means of communication.  I'm willing to chalk that one up to bad timing, but there's a big dividing line in film on this issue, and "Mystery Men" is on the wrong side of that line.

"Mystery Men" isn't a bad movie, it's a mixed bag.  It's funny, it's jammed full of funny characters, the cast does everything they can with what they've got to work with.  But the visual approach is infuriating and frustrating at every turn, and burns up a lot of the good will I have towards the film.  I guess all I can say is that it's fun to watch if you're not paying attention, and you'd have to file it among the comic-book movies that were made before Hollywood got even a decent grasp of how to approach this sort of material.

2 / 5 - Streaming

Cheech & Chong's Nice Dreams - 1981

"Cheech & Chong's Nice Dreams" - 1981
Dir. by Tommy Chong - 1 hr. 28 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

"Cheech & Chong's Nice Dreams" is pretty much exactly what you expect from Cheech & Chong.  Instead of this being a drawback, it's kind of comforting to know that you're getting exactly what you signed up for.  "Nice Dreams" is the duo's third movie together, and it's nice to see them just doing what they do well, with the characters that they've developed together.  It doesn't add up to anything meaningful, but it's a good way to blow ninety minutes.

Eschewing characters, Cheech (Cheech Marin) and Chong (Tommy Chong) use their own names.  They drive around Los Angeles in an ice cream truck, selling weed disguised as push-pops, barely incognito.  They roam about the city, going about their business, while a pair of policemen trail them.  Cheech and Chong try to celebrate their success, but end up waylaid by a pair of enthusiastic cocaine-sniffers (Evelyn Guerrero and Paul Reubens).  While Hamburger Dude (Reubens) absconds with their money, Cheech and Chong head back to Donna's (Guerrero) apartment.  When Donna's convict husband returns from jail, Cheech and Chong flee, and decide to track down Hamburger Dude and their money.

"Nice Dreams" has a shaggy-dog tone to it, and that's to be expected (and embraced).  Is there a plot?  Sort of.  But honestly, the entire point is just to watch a pair of stoners wander around and get in and out of trouble.  Even better if whatever is happening is either funny or weird.  There's plenty of both to go around.  In the weird category, there's Stacy Keach's Sgt. Stedanko gradually turning into a lizard from smoking Cheech and Chong's product, and the entire Casa Del Whacko situation, which culminates with a straight-jacketed Cheech and already heavily-medicated Chong being dosed with LSD by a cackling Tim Leary himself.  On the funny side, probably the biggest, broadest bit that's still really funny involves a fully-nude Cheech dangling from the outside of a glass elevator.  And for those who enjoy gardening, there is a pretty spectacular garden of a very relevant variety to feast one's eyes on.

But, as is appropriate for a movie where the main characters use the names they are known by, the most interesting scenes are ones that take a low-key approach.  One in particular, that takes place in a kitchen, just plants the camera in the corner of the room, while Cheech tries to cook something and Chong has a conversation with what appears to be a blind man.  I was drawn into the conversation, although nobody is talking about anything meaningful, and it's fun to watch Cheech try to play subtle jokes on Chong.  It's more akin to what it's probably like seeing these guys when they're not "on."  "Nice Dreams" has a blend of these lower-key scenes mixed with the ones that involve wide-eyed cocaine use or naked dangling Cheech (or Paul Reubens doing a simpleminded proto-Pee Wee; Reubens is at least as fun as Cheech or Chong in his smaller role).  It's an interesting development in the sort of film that you wouldn't necessarily expect to find any cinematic experimentation within.

If you were eyeballing the line-up of Cheech and Chong movies to make your evening complete, this isn't the one that I would start with.  But, if you've already seen "Up in Smoke," this one is a good number two choice.  You're going to get exactly what you want out of "Nice Dreams," but without the freshness of the first film.  But you're going to laugh still, which is really all I wanted here.

2.5 / 5 - TV

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - 1992

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" - 1992
Dir. by Fran Rubel Kuzui - 1 hr. 26 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

It's never a good sign for a movie if it takes two nights to get through it, especially when it's just shy of 90 minutes long.  It's not that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is terrible, exactly.  There are a lot of things that ease it's inconsequential nature, but it's still essentially inconsequential fluff.  And, for a film that was on the cusp of the 90's cultural shift, it finds itself on the wrong side of the dividing line.

Buffy (Kristy Swanson) is a cheerleader, one of those annoying, flighty, popular girls that drive all her male classmates insane.  She has a couple of odd run-ins with Merrick (Donald Sutherland), who tells her that she's the chosen one.  Chosen to slay vampires, that is.  As it turns out, there's a vampire infestation in her town, led by Lothos (Rutger Hauer) and Amilyn (Paul Reubens), and Buffy is, despite all appearances to the contrary, uniquely qualified to turn back the tide.

"Buffy" is, at it's core, a somewhat self-aware 80's comedy with a great title.  But, while I chuckle at the title and idea, that's different than enjoying an hour and a half of it in execution.   Part of the problem is the amateurish production; whether deliberate or not, the entire movie looks like an episode of "Kids Incorporated."  For a movie predicated on the slaying of vampires, the actual combat is laughably bad.  I get it, this isn't supposed to a be a big action movie, and that this is supposed to be a comedy.  Even so, if you're going to have a movie with fighting, it wouldn't take a ton to make it not absurd (or to make it so absurd that it's intentionally funny).  And the bigger problem is that even if you do so intentionally, making something intentionally bad still yields something bad.

The things that are fun about "Buffy" are a few.  Kristy Swanson is super-cute in this movie, and it's fun seeing actors in early roles (like David Arquette and Luke Perry).  For me, it was bizarre seeing Hilary Swank playing a valley girl; for some reason, I have a really hard time imagining that she ever existed as a teenager.  Stephen Root is fun in a small role, and Paul Reubens is a lot of fun in his role (particularly his death scene).  But it's all in service of nothing in particular.  Once you get past the amusement of a cheerleader fighting vampires (and these are cheesy as hell), the story doesn't lead anywhere.  The characters don't really evolve (Buffy aside, and then only a little), the entire situation resolves itself, and all in under 90 minutes.  It's bizarre that "Buffy" evolved into a longer-running TV show by writer Joss Whedon, because this comes off as a half-baked idea.  Maybe the years between this and the production of the TV show allowed for further development of the idea, but it's not apparent here.


1.5 / 5 - TV

Cheech & Chong's Next Movie - 1980

"Cheech & Chong's Next Movie" - 1980
Dir. by Tommy Chong - 1 hr. 39 min.

Official Trailer

It's really hard to hold incoherence and a meandering pace against this movie, especially since you may or may not be in an incoherent and meandering state of mind when you enjoy it.  I also can't really explain much of the plot, as it's not even secondary here.  Instead, it's a series of connected skits (sort of) that exist just to be funny and entertaining, and definitely do not advance plot or story.  It's Cheech and Chong, man!

So what's the good side to "Cheech & Chong's Next Movie?"  There are some, actually.  First, I was impressed with the fact that Cheech and Chong managed to stretch out a minimal story over 99 minutes.  Seriously, there's not a lot going on, but it doesn't exactly drag as you might expect.  Part of the reason for that is that they seem willing to let others get some.  There's a scene at the welfare office that has Michael Winslow (that guy from the "Police Academy" movies that makes noises) doing his thing while Cheech tries to get frisky with a girl in the behind him, and Chong just sits and enjoys the show.  It's a funny sequence, and despite it being somewhat of a non-sequitur, it makes sense in the context of a bunch of guys with nothing better to do than pass time at the welfare office.  This movie also introduces Edie McClurg (whom you should know from a lot of stuff, but probably as the secretary from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off").  Yes, Cheech and Chong get her stoned, and they get a lot of mileage out of that, as well.

But the biggest secondary part belongs to Paul Reubens.  Yes, Pee-Wee Herman is a character in this movie, years before he'd get his own movies and TV show.  Reubens plays a hotel clerk, naturally at odds with Cheech (playing a second role, a cousin of Cheech's normal character) and Chong.  At one point, frustrated with the fact that the police won't help him out, he claims that they look like Iranians (this, on the heels of the Iranian hostage crisis), which seemingly brings out the entire police force.  They end up hauling Reubens in, though.  Later in the film, Reubens does Pee-Wee in a comedy club scene.  He gets frustrated at Cheech & Chong's heckling, which leads to impromptu comedy bits from Cheech, Chong, and McClurg.  So, credit where credit is due - Cheech & Chong do let other comedians have their moments, which adds to the finished product.

I did kind of enjoy this one, although it's not on par with "Up in Smoke."  Part of it may be that there's not a level of freshness to the characters, but that's what happens over time.  On the other hand, they do know their audience, and deliver exactly what their fans want.  I respect that; hitting your nail squarely on the head is nothing to be ashamed of.

2.5 / 5 - NF Streaming