Much Ado About Nothing

Shakespeare's Play: Much Ado About Nothing, 1598-99, at the height of Shakespeare's career.

Definitive versions: Well, we're watching them. Joss Whedon has also produced a version. It is apparently running the film festival circuit. When it comes out on DVD, we will review it!

Retelling: Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, Much Ado About Nothing (Shakespeare Retold)

MIKE SAYS  this play is one of my absolute favorites.  I love the language, the quips. The attraction- charged rivalry is pure fun.  That the play works both on the basis on language (as the Branagh version proves) and the story (which Shakespeare Retold focuses on) shows just how exceptional it is.

The Benedict and Beatrice relationship is fantastic, and finding two actors that play off of each other so well is the key to making it work, and thankfully both versions have this in bunches.

The most impressive thing for me is that the Retold version chooses to preserve the language far more than it has any reason to, far more than Shrew did.  That it makes this work just shows Shakespeare's mastery of capturing humanity.  He didn't just create characters, he caught a snapshot of life and spirit in each role.

I like that the Retold version goes with a far more realistic approach. Hero needs time to get over the trauma (whereas Shakespeare's heroines were sometimes quick to forgive), but Beatrice and Benedict don't let it bother them.  It doesn't matter WHAT brought them together; once they are, they like it, and make a conscious choice to keep it.

Branagh's version still remains my favorite, but perhaps only because it's so darn WATCHABLE.  Shakespeare was a genius, but one doesn't turn on Hamlet when he's needing a little drama, subterfuge and action.  Much Ado, however, is always good for a laugh.

However, it's hard to compete with the last line of Retold . . . "What are we doing here again?"

KATE SAYS this play is exuberant!! There is no other word for it. Both film versions just dance, jig, gambol, chuckle their way off the screen.

I LOVE the music. I'm especially fond of Patrick Doyle's score for Branagh's version--it is possibly the SECOND soundtrack I added to my collection. And I happen to adore Big Band Music: the soundtrack for the Shakespeare Retold version is sing-along enchanting.

Plus I like a lot of the actors in both (isn't Billie Piper a pistol?). Damian Lewis greatly amuses me (interesting that both Benedicks are sandy blonds). Sarah Parish is hilarious. Emma Thompson speaks Shakespeare as if she's been doing it from the cradle. Branagh speaks it like it is modern English. And Denzel just looks fine. And the "security guards" in both are completely amusing although in totally different ways.

Branagh did have the extra challenge of non-Shakespeare-trained actors. Denzel Washington pulls it off since he sounds good saying anything. Robert Sean Leonard pulls it off through sheer cuteness (he is a good actor in general) and Keanu Reeves pulls it off because his character doesn't need to say much (I will say that the villain in the Shakespeare Retold version, the excellent Derek Riddell, is far more chilling in his villainy than Reeves; however, in general, the villain of Much Ado is not that important: the play is more about people being susceptible to doubt and jealousy than to the villain being brought to judgment).

The play has always suffered from the wedding scene. Claudio's denunciation of Hero, even by sixteenth/seventeenth century standards, is harsh and unnecessary. But then, that's the point! That's why BOTH Beatrices can snarl that great line: "I would eat his heart!" Of course, both Claudios are truly repentant. But--can you say, "High maintenance husband?"

That aside--and the Shakespeare Retold version handles Claudio's outcome fairly well--the relationship between Benedict and Beatrice is the best example of Shakespeare's timelessness. Sure he was a product of his culture, but he also produced these positively modern characters who sound like the Thin Man couple exchanging quips. Or Bones and Booth. The classic relationship of Benedict and Beatrice never dies.

Romeo and Juliet Retelling

Shakespeare's Play: Romeo and Juliet, 1594 (near the beginning of Shakespeare's career)

Definitive versions: Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (1968); Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet (1996); The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare did a version, but nobody ever watches it.

Retelling: Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

KATE SAYS so how totally adorable is this movie?! The thing that I love most about it is how much the writers know and value their Shakespeare. This isn't an "oh-we-saw-West-Side-Story-so-we-know-the-plot" R & amp;J. The Gnomeo & Juliet writers went back to the text--all the text!

There are constant cute references to Shakespeare plays (not to mention Shakespeare himself!). My favorite: "Out, out." "Damn Spot!"

Speaking of Shakespeare--how perfect is Patrick Stewart in that role?!

The movie follows the play quite closely (except for the end--get there in just a moment). It captures the major players, from the (frog) nurse to Tybalt. And the theme is perfectly worked out--in fact, in some ways, the idea of reconciling feuds makes a lot more sense with neighboring gardens than with Italian factions; I doubt Shakespeare fully understood what the Italian factions were fighting over (since the history of medieval Italian factions is harder to parse out than the various elf clans in Tolkien's Silmarillion, Shakespeare's "uh, they're Italian, they're feuding, whatever" attitude is understandable).

But gnomes/neighbors battling over the best garden totally makes sense.

The ending is a little weak--not the Terrafirminator, which is hilarious but the very, very end. Basically, at the last minute, the play becomes a comedy instead of a tragedy. I would have liked the comedy swerve to be more choice than luck.

The difference I absolutely love: the characterizations of Romeo and Juliet. I grew up on the Zeffirelli version--that's the version I watched in high school. What I remember--other than the naked butt scene--is how limp the main characters were, and I've frankly never seen a version where they weren't limp. Even DiCaprio and Danes, who pulled off the angsty limpness better than most, were . . . limp.

I love how brash and funny and mischievous Gnomeo and his Juliet are. I love how an animated version of a garden gnome with a faint white beard can look like a cocky young man. I love Juliet's wry little grin. McAvoy and Blunt as the voices are perfect!

I don't remember this movie making a big splash in the theaters (but then, without regular television, I'm appallingly unaware of a lot of stuff), but the DVD is well-worth renting. Several times.

MIKE SAYS a consequence of both being a parent and working with children is that I get to see A LOT of kid movies.  As fun as that sounds, in the world of movies like Chipmunks, Yogi, and The Smurfs, this particular "perk" is usually something I have to endure (with gritted teeth).  Every once in awhile, however, I'm treated to an enjoyable film.  Luckily, Gnomeo & Juliet was such a surprise, especially since I expected to hate it.

What I expected to be a shallow, silly, and tasteless cash grab of a movie turned out to be a wonderfully enjoyable and clever adaptation.  From the dead-on sound track to the wickedly sharp sense of humor and numerous pop culture references, G&J turned out to be just as much fun for me as it was for the kids I saw it with, and from what I saw, the same was true of many of the adults in the theater.

The great thing about the film is just how true it is to itself and the play.  While it's a ridiculously accurate adaptation, the film has a personality all it's own.  The plot and setting never feel forced, and the meta-humor hits a level rarely seen outside of a comic shop. (For the non-geek, "meta" is something that is about itself; for example, the film Scream is a scary movie ABOUT scary movies and people's reaction to them).

The film is also yet another sign of how much British humor and talent (such as the amazing Michael Caine) are really permeating American media. In fact, one almost wonders if the film were originally intended for a British audience.  G&J never takes its audience or source material for granted, however, and tries to make the same old stuff feel new and worth watching.  For the most part, it succeeds. 

While I know I already mentioned it, I LOVE the soundtrack for the movie.  It's fun, and spot on. Elton John does a great job of making his songs work for the plot. The music and visual style of some of the montages really reveal the age of the film makers, which in this case is actually a coded message to parents watching the film: "Don't worry folks, we've been there with our own kids.  This is for you."

As a parent tired of the current movie trends, I was flattered, grateful and, for once, entertained.

Taming of the Shrew Retellings

Shakespeare's Play: Taming of the Shrew, 1590/1591 (near the beginning of Shakespeare's career)

Definitive versions: Taming of the Shrew (1967) with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, Taming of the Shrew (1980) from The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare, starring John Cleese (The Complete Works did all the plays, so, hey, it's definitive).

Retellings: 10 Things I Hate About You and Taming of the Shrew from Shakespeare Retold

MIKE SAYS of all the the Shakespearean retellings I've seen, 10 Things is by far my favorite, mostly due to the fact that if a person were completely ignorant of Shakespeare, that person would have no idea that it was an adaptation.

Every time I watch the film, however, I'm always surprised by the crude humor in the first half of the film; it's so overpowered by the later half that I forget all about it. The film is superbly written and acted, smart and funny throughout, and far closer to the original play than it has any right to be.

The core of the movie is really Gordan-Levitt and Heath, who bring star power to the film years before either would hit it big.  Stile's Kat is fun and well done, but it's far more fun to see the other actors react to her grumpiness. It's also obvious that the actors are having a blast on the set, and the fun permeates the movie.  It's also apparent that the writers really love The Bard, and this love is evident throughout the film.

The understated humor in the film is what I enjoy most: I still laugh every time I see the gym teacher stumbling in the background after being shot by Bianca's arrow.

The Shakespeare Retold version is far more odd and usually in more odd ways.  This version was unexpected in a lot of ways. I went into it not knowing how long it was, what tone it would take, or even who was in it.

Henderson's Katherine is downright terrifying and is completely convincing.  The rest of the cast is fun, and Sewell's Petruchio is just plain nuts.  It's a clever re-imagining, if a little dark and scary at times.  My wife walked in on the wedding night scene, and it took me a full ten minutes to convince her it wasn't a rape scene.

Probably the biggest difference between the two is the intent of the versions.  Retold is all about telling the story in a way that was new and current for a culture that knew the story inside out, while 10 Things is for a culture that wouldn't care about or even understand the original.  Both work and capture the fun of the story.

KATE SAYS the two retellings do a far better job capturing the humor and pure magic of this play than more artsy, literary productions.

For the play to work, Petruchio can be portrayed one of two ways: as an old-fashioned, domineering bully. Or a whack job.

Either way works. The Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton version is an excellent example of the former. Taylor and Burton are so full of piss & vinegar plus pure animalistic vigor, the movie just cannons from beginning to end.

But then in the 1980s and 1990s, directors got all feminist and self-aware, blah, blah, blah, and Petruchio became a total prick. To be fair, I should write that Petruchio became a progressive feminist out to tame the love of his life. This is how the Complete Works presented Petruchio (played ironically and self-deprecatingly by John Cleese).

The problem with making Petruchio all forward thinking is that he comes off as much worse as a "sensitive" guy than he does as a bully. Instead of being this big, weird, pushy guy who falls in love with a bigger-than-life, weird, pushy gal, he comes across as a condescending jerk who thinks it is his job to "enlighten" the ignorant woman and bring her into the 21st century for her own good. I've met this type of so-called male feminist, and he makes you want to vomit.

Sorry, just getting a bit too much it to the "Kate/Kat" persona.

Regarding the Shakespeare Retold version, it also helps that I love the actors. The movie includes two of my favorite comedians of all time: Shirley Henderson and Stephen Tompkinson. In addition, the movie showcases Rufus Sewell all grown up and hilarious, so now that's three comedians that I love (until Shakespeare Retold, I'd only seen Sewell in serious dramas from his 20's).

I never would have guessed Shirley Henderson for the role of Katherine, but she is perfect--not only in her hunched strutting walk and baby voice that can pierce ears but in her tininess. Half of the film's jokes come from the vast difference in height between her and Sewell, partly because Sewell's Petruchio still finds Henderson's Katherine completely intimidating (when he isn't finding her utterly alluring) and partly because, as Jack on Stargate would say, Henderson's Katherine is a "4-9 fighting machine." Henderson is just this adorable, rampaging ball of fire (I can call her that: at 5' she is slightly shorter than me).

10 Things I Hate About You also has a good cast although 10+ years later, I find Stiles the weakest of the group. But Heath as Patrick Verona is truly good (my favorite scene is his singing/dancing number where he gets to use his physical acting skills). Heath's Petruchio is not quite as crazy as Sewell's but close enough to really sell the part. Interestingly enough, the teen film is somewhat closer to the original play in which money plays a somewhat larger long-term role than in the Shakespeare Retold version. (However, I was glad that the Shakespeare Retold writers got rid of the money motive early on, concentrating instead on the supposed “taming.”)

The most remarkable thing about 10 Things I Hate About You, however, is the supporting cast. David Krumholtz, who I happen to adore in Numb3rs, does an great job as the funny friend though my absolute favorite fall-down laughing scene is the detention scene: no, NOT Stiles showing her boobs—the beginning of the scene where David Leisure accuses a student of having marijuana. It’s completely hilarious.

There’s tons of tiny moments like this from Larry Miller on the exercise bike to Daryl Mitchell's Mr. Morgan sending students to the guidance counselor.

And Joseph Gordon-Levitt, naturally, effortlessly pulls a straight-man act out of a hat. 

To return to my original point: these versions are much closer, I think, to what the play is supposed to be like than so-called "artistic" versions. The combination of sex jokes, pure slapstick, and surprising visual humor is actually much closer to Shakespeare’s brand of comedy than more refined literary-type jokes. Shakespeare was about as bawdy as a writer can get; the only reason he isn’t censored in high schools is because nobody understands the language!

But then, that's what retellings are for.

The Dish

Release Date: April 27, 2001

Time Kate wanted to see it: Since I learned about its existence: about 18 months or so ago.

Reason Kate procrastinated: I actually got it out of the library several times! Including this time. Researching the release date, I was totally surprised that it came out so long ago. Ah, time truly does fly.

Category: Movie, Comedy, True Story

Kate says I'm a Sam Neill fan, so it was inevitable that I would eventually see this movie. Sam Neill does a wonderful job as the soft-spoken yet passionate director of the Parkes satellite installation, Cliff Buxton. The rest of the cast is equally magnificent; one of the nice things about watching movies for the video club is coming across actors and actresses in unexpected roles. Patrick Warburton delivers a more than credible performance as the brusque American engineer! In fact, all the roles are gently and lovingly played.

The movie reminds me of The Right Stuff and Apollo 13, not just for the subject matter and the use of original footage but for the way in which the story is presented. As in the former movies, The Dish relates extraordinary events from the "ground level," so to speak--through the everyday efforts and lives of the people who enabled them to occur.

This is the type of true-story-telling that I appreciate the most. Rather than being struck with BIG EVENTS EVERY THREE MINUTES, the big events are the result of seemingly minor actions in each scene, a quiet unwinding. The end result is one of those truly extraordinary opportunities: for just a moment, the viewer sees historical events through the eyes of those who actually witnessed them.

Landing on the moon was really something, especially considering that the engineers, astronauts, and scientists brought it about with what seems to us, now, almost archaic technology. Talk about goosebumps and tears! I love movies that leave me thinking, Human beings are cool. If Da Vinci had had the wherewithal, he'd have gone to the moon!That's how cool we are!

Not to mention, the movie is very funny in a sly, dry-humor way. Deep-voiced Rudi with his walkie-talkie and his "sections" is hilarious. Kevin Harrington as Mitch and Tom Long as Glenn have great repartee. Warburton, naturally, is dry as dry can be (though he does downplay his usual cynical edge, which impressed me; Jim Carrey may be funny, but I'm always charmed when an actor works more to support a film's overall tone than his own career). The Prime Minister delivers great quips. The McIntyres (the mayor's family) is just adorable with its quick by-plays.

All in all, this is definitely a movie I will watch again!

Mike says I had never heard of this movie. Not a peep. In fact, I lack the vocabulary to fully express my ignorance of both the film and source material itself. As such, it was with some trepidation that I put in the film and prepared for what I thought was a flick about scientists building a satellite dish to look for extraterrestrial life. Okay, so I admit it, maybe my research for this flick wasn't entirely thorough....

The film I ended up watching was fairly entertaining, especially given that in reality, we're watching four guys listen to the radio. Luckily, the actors are able to perform and sell their parts well enough that even this is gratifying and interesting. Thankfully though, the film does focus on some other things to break up the potential monotony.

Australian humor really is unique . . . one can sense the distant relation to English humor, mixed with a dash of plain old oddness. Australian movies seem a bit more willing to poke fun at themselves and the people that live there, which makes watching them a real treat.

One thing I really did enjoy about the movie was the soundtrack, which provided a nice mix of instrumental and songs of the era. The mix of historical footage also really helps set the tone of the film. All in all, not a bad film.

But . . . after watching it, I can understand why the film is fairly unknown. Imagine Apollo 13 from the point of view of one of the guys in the background. Sure, interesting things are going on, but he never really gets involved. There are two main incidents that happen in the movie, and neither feel particularly urgent or really that notable. Interesting, perhaps, but probably more so to the people that live in the area.

Still, given the general lack of excitement and, perhaps, pertinence, the film is still very well made, written, and acted, and is not a bad addition to your "Historical Space Film" collection. However, make sure you're well-rested before you watch it.

Red

Release Date: October 15, 2010

Time Kate wanted to see it: When people began to recommend it to me--about the time it came out on DVD.

Reason Kate procrastinated: So many DVDs . . . so much daily living that gets in the way! And when it comes to checking DVDs off my list, I am more likely to go for television shows first, then movies--even though the movie experience can often be more satisfying. I have Mike to thank for pushing me to expand my horizons!

Category: Action-Comedy/Comic Book Adaptation (really!)

Kate says so I knew about Willis and Freeman and Malkovich and Mirren. But Karl Urban too! What a treat!!

This is a fun movie. I was already prepared to be impressed (which worried me a bit; don't want to get those hopes too high!). I wasn't prepared to be so amused and to be so amused in such an off-beat way. The humor isn't subtle so much as sideways--like Frank's house suddenly having Christmas decorations, the CIA documents with EVERYTHING blacked out, the whole meaning behind "RED."

John Malkovich.

I thought it was wise giving Willis the character-arc. Willis has a remarkable ability to down-play his own mythos. Frank is, yet isn't, McClane. He is a gentler, softer-spoken version of that particular action hero: "gooey on the inside."

And boy, Willis is aging well! I liked the May-ah, September relationship between Frank and Sarah (the actors' age difference is 9 years, not as much as I initially thought). I loved Sarah's, and Victoria's, sheer exuberance. I enjoyed the quick repartee and the fact that while Sarah is the girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car, she isn't the whiny girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car. She also isn't simply the means to an end. (My problem with True Lies, for instance, is that Jamie Lee Curtis, as Helen Tasker, is used to put the problem in motion, i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger; by the end of the movie, she's more or less disappeared from the main action. Willis, on the other hand, is consistently paired with female characters who remain assets throughout the movie--even when taken hostage!)

Back to Urban: I think I was supposed to see Urban/Cooper as Frank's double which didn't really work for me. However, Urban as the ambiguous Cooper absolutely worked for me. Urban plays a good straight man, and he has that slight edge that makes his choices (good, bad, and odd) believable. This isn't The Fugitive where we really get inside Girard's head. Urban has to sell Cooper's fundamental personality in very brief shots. I think he pulls it off. (Then again, Urban could probably convince me that he was, oh, a futuristic ship's doctor. Wait, he already did that!)

Like so many of these types of movies, including The Fugitive, the ending is weaker than the premise. It IS clever but not particularly remarkable. The show isn't about the quest, however, but about the friendship, and that I completely enjoyed. There is a particular incident (which I won't give away--my reasons for not watching Serenity, basically) which upset me, but it is handled extremely well and is not entirely unexpected. And it isn't done to prove some kind of point about life or to manipulate the audience's emotions; it is done as the natural conclusion to the character's choices and personality.

Okay, sorry for being cryptic. Before I conclude, I should mention that I like the camera work for Red. I am far more aware, and more critical, of camera work in movies than in television (although I like the way NCIS scenes are cut). Action movies, especially, can so easily start to drag, yet there's this uneasy line between quick cuts and overly clever/nauseous cuts (Bourne Supremacy resides right on that line; I find it easier to watch Bourne 2 on my television than in a theater). Red is just about perfect. I rarely felt that the scenes were dragging, but at the same time, I didn't feel like an excess of coolness was being forced down my throat. And sometimes the camera work IS the joke, which is fun.

In conclusion, this movie is a tribute to Cold War classics and the larger-than-life personas that those classics spawned. It absolutely comes through!

Mike says Red was a complete surprise for me when I saw it in the theater. I didn't know what to expect, and I was deliriously happy with the outcome.

As Kate mentions, this is a FUN movie, first and foremost. Almost anything you might want to see you get. 'Why doesn't Frank just go beat the crap out of the agent?" Oh wait, that's what he's doing! Moment after moment in the movie is a sheer delight. Sarah talking with the duct tape, the underground lair in the trunk of the car. The grenade launcher in the Pig. And yes, I'm chuckling as I write this!

The chemistry of the characters is great, and the sheer amount of veteran well-known actors is astounding. This is a movie that you can tell a bunch of seasoned actors got together and said, "Let's have fun." And that's exactly what they did.

The introduction of each character is brilliant, and their respective send- offs are just as fun. As Kate mentions, however, the big reveal of the secret conspiracy is a little disappointing... and by disappointing, I mean I still don't fully get it. But, the bad guys get theirs, and the good guys get away. It's really all I needed, if not wanted.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about the movie is the way it handles its true to life balance between humor and drama. Just because we're having fun here doesn't mean that the characters can be hollow joke dispensers. Instead, they are real, believable, and complex people that see the humor of life while still fighting for what they feel is right. It's impressive feat that could have only been pulled off by the caliber of actors represented.

Red is Fun, action-packed, funny, and romantic enough to convince your wife to watch it with you (a bonus for me!). But beware, you might look at stuffed animals a little differently once you've watched it.

Heaven Can Wait (1978)

Mike says this was my first experience with this movie, and I was surprised upon watching it that I really HAD never seen it, heard of it, seen clips of it, Nothing! The movie was a complete surprise, from beginning to end. Which is rare for a geek with a computer in today's world.

Other than being a bit dated, this is a very cute movie. I think what surprised me the most about it was the humor: subtle, quick and clever.

I also really enjoyed Mr. Jordan. As a God stand-in, he is completely believable. The utter disbelief of the guide is also quite funny.

The film is full of cliches and classic sports/back-from-the-dead motifs, But here it's forgivable, because I think it may have been the source instead of another copy. However, I can still picture The Rock starring in a remake of this film a little TOO easily.

I will admit a little bit of confusion at the end. While I agree that letting Joe keep his memories would have been bad, I can't seem to come up with an alternative that would help the ending make sense to me. If Joe can't remember the struggle he went through, then what was the point? By erasing Joe's memories and personality (evidenced by his no longer playing the sax), doesn't this equate to killing the man that existed before? And if Joe no longer exists, why turn Joe into Jarrett, when they could have just taken Joe, kept Jarrett alive, and had the same outcome?

And, if Joe doesn't remember his role as the Millionaire, then what was the point of going through it?

I'm afraid that while a very cute a fun movie, it left me scratching my head as to what the exact moral was. I guess the loss of the sax could represent maturity... but I think it's a bit of a stretch.

I think I ended the movie feeling like Joe's coach friend... our Joe is gone. How could he have defeated death twice to only now be erased?

I did like the small detail, though, that we didn't see the "real" face of any of Joe's bodies until he was in them!


Kate says I LOVE this movie. When I was young, I loved the humor. Now that I'm older, I love the sweet melancholy plus the humor.

The movie has everything--as the grandfather says in Princess Bride, "Fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles . . ."

Well, okay, maybe no literal giants or monsters. Or fencing.

But it does have a murder mystery!

More than the plot, however, I love the characters from the fundamentally kind Joe Pendleton to the gently authoritative James Mason. This is one of those movies where I notice and remember the little things: Joe learning all the servants' names. Mrs. Farnsworth getting startled by Joe at dinner. The tuna speech at the board meeting. The conversations in the closet. The discussions over cocoa. The escort's flabbergasted reaction to Joe's desire to stay in Mr. Farnsworth's body. Mr. Jordan saying, "Joe" and holding out his hands.

Between James Mason and James Earl Jones as "God," I have to say . . . it's a tie.

And of course, Charles Grodin in his deadpan, laconic, ironic way is completely hilarious. I love the line (about nuclear power plants destroying California), "I think you would have to define 'destroy.'"

To return to the plot, I guess I must have loved cohesive plots even as a kid because one thing that has always struck me about this movie (more so as I grow older and become increasingly exposed to Hollywood's idea of "good") is how much the movie doesn't stray off course. Now-a-days, Joe would make it to the Superbowl AND save the company from evil entrepreneurs. But saving the company isn't the point. Joe does what he can, but he isn't really a businessman. He has a distinct personality, being something of a loner, a health nut, a romantic, and a guy with a simple, all-consuming dream. (I apologize for describing being a quarter-back for the Rams as simple. I just mean, Joe wants one thing in life--two after he meets Betty.)

The fascinating thing here is that his new body--Jarrett--is subtly different. The differences are lightly touched on, but it is implied that Jarrett was slightly more sophisticated and urban as well as a tad more social than Joe. But it is also implied that the two men's personalities are close enough that changes in Jarrett's character will be attributed to maturity (and his new girlfriend).

Lastly, I love the sweet melancholy that threads through the movie. Everything that James Mason says in that deep, gentle voice can be describe this way. However, one of my favorite sweet lines is Joe's to Max: "They don't have a football team in heaven, Max, so God couldn't make me first string." And the line "It's alright. There's nothing to be afraid of," for all its cliched simplicity, is used mostly effectively.

I never get tired of this movie despite the dated feel. A true classic in my mind!

Ferris Bueller's Day Off 1986

Kate says this movie had to be included in our list, but in all honesty, I wasn't totally looking forward to it. I teach college students, most of whom are smart and kind hard workers; a few of whom irritate me to no end because they are, well, Ferris Bueller: self-entitled preppies who don't believe they will or should ever suffer consequences. To me, Ferris Bueller is practically a sociopath, a guy who lies without remorse/change in affect. Maybe I read too much John Douglas (probably), but I find this rather chilling.

However, as an example of its kind, this John Hughes' film is a work-of-art. The pacing is almost flawless. The encapsulation of a certain type of teenage dream is nearly perfect. And parts of it are very funny: "They could be fascist anarchists. It still wouldn't change the fact I don't own a car." The secretary with multiple pencils in her hair. The boring teachers who illustrate more how high school felt than what it was actually like.

The real theme of the movie, I think, is the need for people--Jeanie, Rooney--to stop caring what Ferris does or what he gets away with, to stop obsessing over his utter lack of responsibility, to get on with their lives. So, he probably will grow up to be a fry cook! (or an embezzler who works for Enron). Eh, so what. Let it go.

The main character arc in the movie, on the other hand, belongs to Cameron. And Cameron's character arc raises an interesting point. I must have seen the movie a dozen times when I was a teen (it was THE movie people saw in my age bracket). The ending, when Cameron gets angry at his father and destroys the car, always surprised me. Where did that come from? There was no set-up to explain Cameron's inexplicable behavior.

Watching the movie now, I realized that Cameron's bad relationship with this father, while never shown, is established through dialog. However, here's the snag: most of the information about Cameron comes from Ferris Bueller, and, even at the tender age of 15, I didn't consider Ferris a credible source. Hence, Cameron's behavior always surprised me because it wasn't based on anything I could judge for myself.

The point here is, despite the many, many times I saw the movie at a teen, it had almost zero impact on my mental/emotional life. People's worries in the 80's about John Hughes' movies and their impact on the teenage population were rather unnecessary. What John Hughes did do (very well) was to mirror what teenagers already thought or wanted to think about themselves (good luck stopping that!). But I wouldn't credit John Hughes as a creator of culture--and in all fairness, I don't think he saw himself that way.

Mike says that anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I have a lot of love and nostalgia for this movie. As I've mentioned a few times, this movie became as expected as 7-up and soup on those days I was home sick from school. Sure, I didn't understand all of it, and sure, I was sick, but it was fun, I think, to live vicariously through Ferris and truly explore and claim that freedom that comes with being home during school hours.

As a film, Ferris delivers on several levels, so many in fact, that I think the viewer can really choose what they want to take from it. For some, it could be a zany teenage comedy. For others, a film about the fun times of youth, or even a coming of age story... for some of the characters at least.

The casting and acting are all solid, and the choice of Mathew Broderick (our second film on the list starring him, by the way) was beyond perfect. It was almost as if the film was built around him. And, given Broderick's popularity of the time, that could have very well been true! As a kid, and even now, Mia Sarah's performance and presence was so refined, so royal, almost, that she would almost seem out of place. But, who else would Ferris love, but a virtual princess? The aura of wisdom and patience, though touched with youth, really works with Broderick's playfulness and charisma.

The film never drags, never falters, and is almost deceptive in the way it wanders yet heads decisively for the conclusion.

One thing I find fascinating about the film is that Ferris, in his decision to have a day off and shirk responsibility, drags several people along for the ride, even those opposed to him. While Ferris obviously takes his girlfriend and best friend along (the girlfriend, I'm convinced, was the chaperone, and Cameron had something to learn), his sister and Rooney, through their decision to hold Ferris accountable (despite their complete lack of power or authority to do so) find and seize the same self-empowerment that Ferris wields.

They break the rules themselves, blaming Ferris along the way. Jeanie shows us the peace of letting go and worrying about yourself. Rooney shows us what happens when you continue to let others guide your actions. And Cameron, well, I think he shows that we need courage to stand on our own.

As for the moral of the film, I meant what I said before: I think one can really take what they want from it. As a kid, I think it was plain good fun. As a college student, it was almost holy writ, a dogma for enjoying life between the drudgery. And now, as a parent, I find it a wonderful reminder of the empowerment and freedom of youth, and a reminder to not get too caught up in the serious things of life. Sometimes, you need a day off.

Groundhog Day

Time Travel Device: Repeat a single day over and over and over and over . . .

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: The main character learns and grows.

Coolness Factor: Pinpointing which minor actions can change a life.

Flaws: There is no apparent cause for the time loop, or why it ended. Also, the human mind can only stay stable for so long with no true measurement of time. Could Phil have stayed sane for the years (decades, centuries?) he was stuck in the time loop? (Kate--Good point, Mike! The list will encounter unending time loops again although the characters in these time loops won't remember. Remembering certainly changes the endurance factor.)

Paradox: Time Loop--a period of time that repeats, cycling from beginning to end over and over.

Trivia: Apparently in one version of the script, a voodoo curse was the cause of Phil's time loop, invoked by a love-spurned co-worker, but this was dropped from the final movie. (Kate--This sounds similar to Disney's Beauty & the Beast plot; hey, there's a similar motif!)

Kate says Groundhog Day is basically Scrooged, only far better. Bill Murray did Scrooged—based on Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol--five years before Groundhog Day. Scrooged is rather long, but the thing that makes it a failure, in my view, is that Bill Murray's deadpan mocking edge is too strong at the end. It is hard to believe he has changed.

Murray's deadpan mocking edge is what makes him funny, but it needs to be cut by some sincerity if the viewer is going to believe that Scrooge or Phil has really grown as a person.

I do believe it with Groundhog Day, partly because the viewer actually sees Phil change. (Come to think of it, the suddenness of Scrooge's change is one of that story's flaws.) He goes through an entire lifetime of choices, and his choices plus the results of his choices make him a better person, not a sudden decision to be a better person.

And the cycle of change is quite interesting. Murray goes through Maslow's hierarchy of needs: at first, he focuses on what the day will get him in terms of money and easy sex; then, he focuses on what the day will get him in terms of love; then he begins to reach out to others; finally, he focuses on improving himself for the sake of improvement.

And of course, Murray is very funny. "Do you want to talk about the weather or are you just making chit-chat?"

Mike says that Groundhog Day is a fun movie, but before this list, I never thought of it as a time travel movie; rather, a "odd occurrence" movie.

Groundhog Day does belong in this category, and Phil keeps traveling back again and again until he gets the day just right, allowing him to break the loop and continue with his life. I like that the cause is never really explained, or even hinted at; instead it's up to the viewer to decide. I like to think perhaps divine intervention was the cause.

Bill Murray is sometimes hit and miss with me. I'm not a big fan of "jerk" humor, and the jerk is Murray's typical role. I can't stand What about Bob? But Kate is right: Murray's mean spirited humor is toned down a lot in this movie, and as you see him grow, you believe the change... mostly. That edge still lingers, so when he's being "sincere," I can't help but wonder if it's all an act.

Groundhog Day is also extremely quotable: "Don't drive angry, DON'T DRIVE ANGRY!"

The overall appeal of Groundhog Day, I think, is a comical and simple take on a pretty deep topic--the true nature of life, and time, and how choices change us and those around us. It's told in such a universal accessible way, it's one of those movies everyone has seen. Does it deserve this status? Eh, sure. Why not? It is a fun movie, and it avoids all that technical time travel explanation stuff. Most importantly, I think it builds off something we've all experienced: the monotony of doing the same thing over and over. Groundhog Day isn't just a movie about an everyday man in a weird situation, it's a weird movie for the everyday man.

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

Time Travel Device: A phone booth!

Time Travel Outcome: Keep Bill and Ted together by helping them pass History.

Coolness Factor: Collecting historical dudes.

Flaws: Would anyone CHOOSE to base a civilization on Bill and Ted? (I'm not saying civilizations have never been based on Bills and Teds; I'm just questioning the mentality that would do it on purpose--though Mike makes a strong argument for why someone would!)

Paradox Featured: Predestination Paradox (the future exists as it is exists because of the act of going back in time; thus your actions fulfill destiny instead of changing or endangering it).

Kate says wow, this movie is stupid.

Okay, it actually isn't as stupid as it seems. But the initial opening "dudes" are a little difficult to get past.

I must have seen this movie at least five times when it first came out (and I never suspected that Keanu Reeves would become an icon in his own right!). It was not, in my youth, quite as initially annoying as I now find it.

However, if you keep watching, the movie holds up surprisingly well. The problem is basic and is set forth in a tidy fashion, using straight-forward explanations. I remember being impressed that the famous dead dudes speak the languages of their places and times--and I still am. (Except fifteenth-century Englishmen and women would, in reality, be fairly incomprehensible to Bill and Ted. I'm not sure I knew that when I was a teen.)

Bill and Ted do get less irritating as the film progresses--and not just because the viewer gets used to "So-crates" and "bodacious." They mature and problem-solve. At the end, Ted even suggests that they actually learn to play guitar before going further with the band!

And their final project is surprisingly good. Even if perceived as a mocking pastiche (which it really is even though Bill and Ted are being serious), it is a clever mocking pastiche. You can't mock what you don't know. I'd give it an A+! (I'm not sure I would pass Bill and Ted if they hadn't passed any other part of the course, but I'd certainly give them an A+ for the final project.)

And there are some excellent parts and lines. The part where Bill and Ted visit the future is oddly touching. I love the Star Wars reference in medieval England. I've always been struck by how well Alex Winter plays being upset over Ted's supposed demise. And I really love the line: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K."

Oh, and Rufus (George Carlin) is great, of course.

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is not a complete waste of your time!

Mike says reviewing Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (a favorite of my childhood) can be a little difficult without a certain goal in mind. It could be reviewed as a commentary on 80's metal culture, a comedy adventure film, or even studied as an early work of Keanu Reeves. In reality, the time travel/sci-fi aspect of the movie is so underplayed that it can be easily overlooked. But, then again, it should be; after all, time travel really isn't what the movie is about.

The simple fact is that the hows and whys of the the time machine are really unimportant to the story--Bill & Ted must overcome their ignorance and aimlessness if they are to achieve their destinies. While the movie contains many stereotypes of 80's comedies and is admittedly a little dated, the true story of Bill & Ted really surpasses the trappings of the 80's sci-fi/comedy film.

As teenagers, the future and the past are two big, mysterious unknowns that every adult seems to know all about. The idea that events transpired before our birth is a hard one to grasp for the teen-aged mind; so too the idea that we can truly shape our futures. While many are told that they have bright futures ahead, few believe it, and many wait for it to come instead of chasing after it.

When first introduced, Bill and Ted are in the here and now of teenage life. The future is in mind, but it is a shiny prize that neither knows how to reach. Likewise, the past is a mystery, something that offers no real value to their dilemma. Ted's father provides a wonderful vision of what awaits them--adulthood as men who are unable (and perhaps unwilling) to remember the dreams of their childhood and who failed to achieve them.

When Rufus arrives with the Booth, rather than save them and hand them their prize, he hands them not only the keys to shape their destiny but a way to meet and learn from historical figures who also actively shaped the futures of themselves and those around them.

By giving Bill and Ted the ultimate responsibility of their fate and future, Rufus empowers the aimless pair, and begins the journey that creates his world. While it it true that this creates a pre-destination paradox (the future must intervene in order for them to exist, so it exists in order to intervene), Rufus really represents the the culmination of Bill and Teds dreams: their music not only comes to be but honestly affects others for the better. Rufus appearing to inspire and empower the duo is really no different than being motivated to see your dreams come true, or being inspired by someone who has chased the same goal (a figurative representative of the future).

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is fun, hilarious, and at times, VERY hokey. But its message is timeless: The future and the past are intertwined, and they touch here in the present. It is our job to look back, look forward, and then figure out where we want to go, and how we're going to get there. And that journey is most certainly an EXCELLENT adventure.

Bubba Ho-Tep Review

Kate says that out of the current list of movies--involving cavemen, teen film noir, and clones--Bubba Ho-Tep is far and away the most bizarre. No kidding.

The movie is basically about getting old with dignity or at least dealing with old age with dignity. It is also a quest narrative: there's a call to adventure, tests, the collecting of friends/mentors/weapons, and a final battle. Bruce Campbell, playing the hero Elvis, is awesome. Ossie Davis, his mentor JFK (he was dyed black), is also great. The explanation of the problem (how the mummy ends up in Texas) is surprisingly complete.

And . . . I don't know what else I can say. It is hardly fair to hold Bubba Ho-Tep to the same standards I would, say, Brick. Bruce Campbell is the master of B movies and camp (though he is capable of more reflective roles; his Elvis in Bubba is quite insightful, and his devil on X-Files is multi-layered with a tender side). Bubba is an atmospheric horror movie (sort of) with lots of interior dialog, random back flashes, and an abrupt ending. It is also completely unapologetic about, well, its total lack of trajectory.

This is oddly refreshing: I would say this is the first film out of this list where the director and actors don't care whether we, the viewers, like it or not. Oh, you're watching? Well, we had a lot of fun. I guess we hope you had fun too. But we don't really care. Hey, Kemosabe! Wow, isn't that hilarious?!

Like I said, the most bizarre film yet.And completely unjudgeable. It is what it is.

Mike says I'm sorry! I totally forgot how crude the first few minutes of this movie was. That being said, I think an elderly Elvis would probably be thinking and saying just about the very same things.

Bubba Ho-Tep made this list because of how utterly unique it is. Elvis and JFK versus a mummy in a retirement home in Texas. It's bizarre, it's weird, and a tad hokey. But it's also surprisingly moving and a hell of a lot of fun. Touching on Kate's comments, aside from the comedy efforts of the undertakers, the acting is phenomenal. Bruce Campbell owns his role of Elvis, selling it with a cool assurance that catches you by surprise. Campbell doesn't oversell it: his Elvis is more real man than the usual stereotypical Elvis performance, and he somehow utters "Elvis Speak" so casually that you can take it in stride; this is not a man with catch phrases; it is a real language, a genuine way of speaking.

The plot, bad guy, and everything else is standard B-movie hocum. Fun, simple, and effective. The real treasure of the movie lies in the journey of the character and his quest to reclaim his dignity and importance before death. If not for the sheer oddity of the picture, I would expect to see it on a list of must see Elvis bio-fiction, like Heart Break Hotel.

I also have to give praise to the soundtrack. The western/rock instrumental score is epic and sweeping, capturing both the heroic nature of Elvis, while also being a little sad and lonely, perfectly communicating the idea of a tired but legendary figure.

What Kate said above is correct though: this Movie is WEIRD, but powerful in its own way.