My memory of movies is kind of shoddy. I can remember, in detail, where I was and who I was with for certain movies, but others just float in a memory vacuum. I remember the movie fine, but I don't know when or why I watched it. Twins is one of those mystery movies for me. I know I enjoyed it as a kid, and I can recall a decent portion of the movie, but I don't know why I liked it or who I would have seen it with. Maybe a look at the trailer will help jog my memory:
Even though I have seen Twins several times over the years, I can hardly believe that trailer was real. It looks like someone trying to make a legitimate movie from a discarded SNL sketch. It looks awful. And yet I have positive memories of it? I am definitely starting to doubt the merits of my nostalgia.
Twins begins on a remote South Pacific island, where the inexplicably accented Julius (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is told for the first time that he has a twin brother. Naturally, he assumes his brother will be a lot like him: impossibly fit, scientifically brilliant, and eager to be reunited with his family.
Yes, I said "brilliant." If you suspend your disbelief now, this movie will be much easier to watch.
Julius then hops in a raft and paddles his way to California to find his brother. Naturally. As it turns out, Julius' long-lost brother looks and acts nothing like him. Hint: that's where the comedy comes in! Vincent (Danny DeVito) is a short, fat, bald weasel of a man. He aspires to white collar crime, but is willing to settle for stealing cars and selling them to chop shops. In his free time, he constantly disappoints his on-again, off-again girlfriend, Linda (Chloe Webb). When Julius finally (after one, maybe two scenes) tracks down Vincent, Vince is in jail. Being a loving brother, Julius offers to pay the steep bail with his enormous briefcase of cash. Of course, Vincent doesn't believe he is the twin brother of an Austrian bodybuilder, but he's not going to deny anyone the pleasure of getting him out of jail. From that point on, all Julius has to do is convince Vincent that they are brothers and track down their missing parents. And all Vincent has to do is stay one step ahead of some ruthless criminals who want to kill him. That sounds like a pretty full plate for these two, but keep in mind that they both have to grow as people, learn to love, and waltz to a Jeff Beck cameo.
This is the movie that inspired the "Sounds legit" meme
The acting in Twins, while broad, isn't as goofy as the film's concept. What is perhaps more surprising, in retrospect, is Arnold Schwarzenegger's competence in a comedic role. Sure, he'd been funny on occasion in his action movies --- my personal favorite is him punching a horse in the face in Conan the Barbarian --- but this was his first real comedy. His acting chops are clearly limited...
Arnold, reading his lines
...but his timing is actually pretty good. Ahnuld is not a natural, but his stilted acting fits the innocence of his character and his broad expressions fit the gags in this movie. Danny DeVito's performance is harder to describe. In the beginning of the movie, he is the closest thing the audience has to a character that is thinking what they are thinking --- specifically, the phrase "Yeah, right," over and over again.
DeVito, discussing the plausibility of this script
As the film progresses, though, Vincent starts to believe. That makes sense, because the audience is (hopefully) going through the same transition, if the film is working. The way DeVito handles that change is to start acting consistently goofy to match Ahnuld's awkwardness. That silliness is amplified by the fact that DeVito is forced to carry the dramatic moments in this movie because Schwarzenegger simply can't. The ladies (Chloe Webb and Kelly Preston) were just fine in their supporting romantic roles. They didn't have a lot of personality, but it was enough for their limited screen time. It is worth pointing out that a young David Caruso has a small part in Twins as the parking attendant. Sadly, he does not wear any sunglasses in this film.
Twins was directed by Ivan Reitman, toward the back-half of his incredibly successful run in the 80s and early 90s. Reitman's skill set as a director seems to be allowing the talent to do their thing in front of the camera and edit it into a cohesive story later. That method works when you've got an improvisational master like Bill Murray in your movies. Replacing Murray with Schwarzenegger doesn't get the same result. One side effect of that is a reliance on much, much broader comedy in Twins than in Reitman's best films, Stripes and Ghostbusters. That's not necessarily a terrible thing, but it makes for a far more generic and formulaic comedy.
Except for the part where the brothers prepared to crush those poor, poor children
Reitman deserves credit for taking an absolutely ludicrous concept and making it into a watchable, even likable film. That was not inevitable.
It could have been much, much worse
What makes Twins work is how warm it is. Yes, the plot is idiotic. No, the acting is not very impressive. Yes, the main concept also serves as the bulk of the film's jokes. But it's pretty damn cute. The physical comedy of the two brothers in sync, while not subtle, is well done. The same goes for the ludicrous plot; as much as I want to hate this movie, seeing DeVito and Schwarzenegger with those puppy dog eyes, asking about their mom is downright adorable. Is Twins a classic? Definitely not. It's pleasant, but utterly disposable entertainment that is almost immune to logic and scrutiny. And it's pretty good for what it is.
The spoof is a delicate art. You don't want to overload your spoof with pop culture gags, because your movie will feel dated almost immediately. However, you aren't trying to tell a real story, either. The spoof should, when properly done, act as an homage to something, even as it pokes fun at it. Johnny Dangerously is a spoof of old-time gangster flicks, a genre that modern audiences probably aren't terribly familiar with. Can a spoof be successful and funny, even if its spoofing subject is not well-known to its audience? Let's find out.
This is a spoof, so I'm not going to spend too much time on the story. Johnny Dangerously (Michael Keaton) is an up-and-coming mobster in his town, the beloved Number Two guy to crime boss Jocko Dundee (Peter Boyle). Jocko, feeling the heat from his competition, hires some new guys, including self-described scumbag, Danny Vermin (Joe Piscopo). The funny thing about scumbags is that they're not very nice. Or loyal. Meanwhile, Johnny has kept his professional life very separate from his personal one; his gang doesn't know about his family, and his family doesn't know that he's a mobster. That's not a big deal, really, until Johnny's little brother Tommy (Griffin Dunne) graduates from law school (which Johnny's illegal activities paid for) and starts a strong campaign to eliminate organized crime from their city, especially that infamous Johnny Dangerously. Well, that's what happens when you pay for someone's schooling.
Johnny Dangerously: favorite mobster of the young and the elderly
So, the plot is pretty basic, if a little silly. Is it funny? It's not side-splitting or anything, but Johnny Dangerously is pretty enjoyable. Michael Keaton is solid in the lead role; I wish more of his jokes relied on his natural comic timing and dialogue, rather than on physical gags, but he is better than average here. The surprising performance in this movie is Joe Piscopo's. Outside of this movie, I have never laughed at anything that he has done, but he is definitely the best part of this film. And I don't mean that as an insult to the movie. I can honestly say that I found his character's recurring gag and almost all of his dialogue extremely funny.
Proof that Joe Piscopo was funny once. Once!
The rest of the supporting cast was a bit of a letdown. I wasn't expecting comic gold from Marilu Henner --- and she wasn't bad, per say --- but she doesn't really bring anything to the picture. Maureen Stapleton was more of a prop than a character, but she did deliver a few funny lines. I was definitely disappointed that Peter Boyle didn't have better lines, even if he sold the hell out of the lines he was given. Danny DeVito was okay as a sleazy District Attorney, but it was about as nuanced as his part in The Nightman Cometh.
Note: the words "troll toll" and "boy's hole" do not appear in this film.
Ray Walston has a bit part/recurring physical gag in this movie. It took me a few minutes to realize why he would agree to such a small role, but then I remembered that he worked with this director in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and apparently owed her a favor. I was disappointed in Griffin Dunne's performance; being the goody-goody character is a thankless task, but I was hoping he would add a little something more to the part. That expectation is my own fault, I suppose. This is only the second movie I have seen Dunne in, and he looked like this in the last one:
Oh, and Dom DeLuise makes a cameo appearance as the Pope, delivers one line and got prominently displayed in the opening credits. I have no idea why he was ever popular. It is also worth noting that Chicago Bears legend Dick Butkus played a supporting role in this movie. He doesn't really do much of anything, but, as a Bears fan, I had to mention him. Sadly, I could find no images of him (in Johnny Dangerously) on the internet.
I did find this using the search terms "Dick Butkus awesome"
Johnny Dangerously was only director Amy Heckerling's second film (the first was Fast Times...). It's an interesting choice to make a period piece spoof for a sophomore work, but I think Heckerling did a good job. I like the tone of the movie far more than I like most of the jokes. There's just something fun and laid-back about this picture, so the little moments that should only be "cute" are more entertaining than they have any right to be (like Johnny addressing his old neighborhood). The humor drops off in the final third of the film, as it relies more on physical jokes, but Heckerling managed to squeeze out a comprehensible plot from a spoof script. She deserves some credit for that.
If there is one major weakness in Johnny Dangerously, it is that the script is kind of weak. Aside from Michael Keaton's delivery and Joe Piscopo's dialogue, this film is lacking in funny jokes. Don't get me wrong --- there are several funny one-liners and visual gags. My problem is that this film has about as many funny moments as you would find in a romantic comedy. That's a low joke quotient for a spoof; that means that way too much time was spent on the story and not enough on making people laugh. Part of the problem is with the spoofing material. Poking fun at a film genre that was at least thirty years old at that point? Really? And I thought Mel Brooks was late to the party with Spaceballs! The jokes that playfully nudged the cliches of gangster movies weren't terribly clever or unique, probably because the conventions had already been pointed out by then. "Well, maybe it's not supposed to be a spoof." Then why doesn't the main character have a moment of sincerity in the whole movie, jackass? Let me do the genre categorizing, okay? Johnny Dangerously isn't a great spoof, but the two lead performances keep it funny and the direction gives it a light-hearted-enough tone so that doesn't really matter. It's not a classic, but definitely worth a watch.
As a child raised in the losing tradition of Chicago sports (My name is Brian, and... I am a Cubs fan), the Bulls first three-peat was something special. When Michael Jordan abruptly retired in 1993, I was crushed. After a brief taste of the sweetness of victory, was I doomed to a lifetime of rooting for teams that will never win again? Well, in the case of the Bears and Cubs, probably. As it turned out, though, that was not the case for the Bulls. As everyone knows, Michael returned in mid-1995 and they began their second Championship three-peat in the 95-96 season. I had always assumed that the reasons for Jordan's comeback were a mix of him coming to terms with the death of his father and the fact that he really sucked as a minor league baseball player. It wasn't until I revisited Space Jam that I realized that it was, in fact, a documentary on what motivated Jordan to return to basketball.
With a name like Space Jam, it should come as no surprise that most of the movie takes place in spacethe land of Looney Tunes. You see, an evil (space) amusement park owner, Mister Swackhammer (voiced by Danny DeVito), realizes that his (space) park is just not fantastic enough to draw crowds any more. He comes to the conclusion that his (space) park needs the Looney Tunes as his star attractions. Not one to risk being refused, Swackhammer sends his underlings, the Nerdlucks, to Earth with ray guns to help "convince" the goofy cartoon characters. And, in case you were wondering where you can find the Looney Tunes, they live in the center of the Earth. This is a documentary, so you can consider that a science fact. Even when facing powerful ray guns, though, the Looney Tunes are still a clever and wacky bunch. Just when Elmer Fudd, Foghorn Leghorn, Daffy Duck and the rest were ready to surrender, Bugs Bunny pulled out a tried and true standard; he scribbled in a book that he had retitled (in pencil) "How to Kidnap" that all kidnap victims get a chance to defend themselves. The dim-witted Nerdlucks, who happen to top out at one foot tall, fall for the bit and let the Looney Tunes choose form of challenge. Seeing that their opponents are very small, with short arms and legs, the Looney Tunes choose basketball as the form of challenge.
Obviously, the Looney Tunes, with their anthropomorphic height of approximately three feet tall each, dominate the Nerdlucks in the game and avoid a life of (space) slavery. But wait...! The Nerdlucks have a trick up their sleeve; they attend some NBA games and somehow steal the talent away from the best professional players in the game. Who did they steal from? Charles Barkley (Hall of Famer), Patrick Ewing (Hall of Famer), Larry Johnson (two-time All-Star), Muggsy Bogues (the shortest player in NBA history), and Shawn Bradley (who was tall and, uh, gangly), all of whom were left unable to catch a pass or shoot the ball without their talent. With the "best" NBA talent in tow (more on that later), the Nerdlucks return to Lonney Tunes land and absorb their new talent, which gives them great strength, size, basketball skills, a new group name (the Monstars), and (of course) matching uniforms. It also gives them a theme song.
The next time any of these five rappers claim to be "hard" or have "street cred," someone should mention the song they did for a Bugs Bunny movie.
Anyway, to counter the Nerdlucks Monstars on the basketball court, Bugs and friends kidnap Michael Jordan to play on their side. He doesn't really want to, but the Monstars basically call him chicken, so it's on like Donkey Kong. Apparently, Michaels everywhere have a problem walking away from an insult that grave. I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but Michael rediscovers his love for basketball and his desire to humiliate Charles Barkley on the court.
With a cast so diverse as to include professional athletes, cartoon characters, aliens, and the occasional professional actor, you would be justified in wondering how good the acting is in this movie. But guess what? This is a documentary, so there is no "acting," just how things really happened. That said, I would like to point out that Sir Charles has such amazing conversational skills that he can make Dave Grohl extremely uncomfortable in a matter of moments. It is interesting to see Wayne Knight as Jordan's personal assistant, but it explains how he killed time between Seinfeld episodes. Bill Murray is as awesome here, in real life, as he was in his other hilarious 1996 movie, Larger Than Life, where he co-starred with an elephant. The athletes are a little awkward to watch on screen, trying in vain to time their punchlines, but they should not be judged too harshly, since the Nerdlucks stole all their talent. This was just one of many features made by director Joe Pytka (IMDB gives him a whopping total of seven directorial credits) and while he may not have won any Oscars for this brave foray into documentary filmmaking, he did get nominated for a Director's Guild of America award for the "Hare Jordan" Nike commercial.
Now, if you didn't know any better, you might think that this was a cheap knock-off of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? However, this isn't a movie with actors jumping around in front of a green screen and having their animated pals added in later. This really happened. Michael Jordan was kidnapped by Looney Tunes and later arrived at a minor league baseball game via a spaceship. Fact. And his house was just a normal suburban house, not a mansion. Fact. And young Michael, as a child, practiced what he would always get away with as an adult: traveling.
That's a good thing, because if this wasn't a true story, then some parts of this movie would just stick out as downright peculiar. I'll ignore the wisdom of having an accused child pornographer/closet dweller/urination enthusiast performing the theme song to a movie aimed at families. I'll pretend that Michael Jordan didn't play in a game with a final score of 78-77. And I'll look the other way as Lola Bunny, despite her gender and three foot height, manages to dunk. My problem is that the Nerdlucks identified Muggsy Bogues and Shawn Bradley as part of the NBA elite. What, were Will Perdue and Dickie Simpkins busy? Muggsy wasn't bad, but being the shortest guy in the league isn't a trait I would look for when trying to steal somebody's talent. Shawn Bradley, though...that's just a terrible choice. Honestly, I don't see a difference between his regular play and how he looked after his talent was stolen. But, truth is stranger than fiction, and we need to accept that these are the facts. With such ridiculousness inherent in the story, it was brave for Michael Jordan to risk ridicule by showing the world exactly what he went through and why he returned to basketball. He did it to keep the Looney Tunes, and laughter, here on Earth.
If this was just an ordinary children's movie, I would have to give it
Nevertheless, this is, perhaps, the greatest true story (that eventually became a partially animated movie) of our time.
I reviewed this movie (and posted a slightly altered version of this review) at the request of my friends at NoBulljive, the best Chicago Bulls blog on the interweb. Have a request? Let me know.
